STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEALS OF DOCKET NO.:
535 BROADWAY ASSOC.,
PETITIONER FC 520062-S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 8, 1991, the above-named owner filed a Petition for
Administrative review against an order issued on July 22, 1991,
by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations
known as 535 West 135th Street, New York, New York, Apartment
4-E, wherein the Administrator determined that the owner had not
maintained services and accordingly reduced the rents.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues
raised by the petition.
The issue on appeal is whether the Administrator's order was
The applicable law is Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction
The tenant originally commenced the proceedings on February 11,
1991 by filing a complaint of a decrease in apartment services
complaining that the owner had failed to maintain heat and gas
service, and that the kitchen faucet was constantly dripping.
The owner did not respond to the complaint.
On June 24, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the order
hereunder review, finding that a diminution of services had
occurred and reducing the rent as follows:
1. Dripping kitchen faucet - $1.50.
2. Lack of gas service - 7.5% of the Maximum Legal
It was also determined that the issue of the lack of heat had
been considered in a separate order.
The owner's petition raises no objection to the finding of
reduced services, but only asserts that the tenant should not get
a rent reduction because he will also receive a generous abate-
ment upon the settlement of the current building-wide rent
strike, thereby being unjustly rewarded with duplicate relief.
The owner further alleges that the reduced service was caused by
a commercial tenant and not the owner's fault.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The record in this case establishes that the owner failed to
respond to the tenant's complaint, and that an inspection
conducted by an employee of the DHCR confirmed the defective
conditions complained of. The owner's failure to respond to the
complaint precluded him from raising the above issues for the
first time on appeal, and they may not be considere . Neverthe-
less, the petitioner's allegations fail to raise any argument
that would have invalidated the Rent Administrator's order.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's
rights as they may pertain to an application to the Division for
a restoration of rent based upon the restoration of services.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.