FI 530239 RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
SHOMER MANAGEMENT/ DOCKET NO.:
Y. MOSHE SINGER, ZDK 530028-B
625 West 156th Street
PETITIONER New York, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely Petition for Administrative
Review of an order issued on August 29, 1991, concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to
the issues raised by the petition.
Three separate building-wide complaints were filed on November
15, 1989, January 2, 1990 and January 9, 1991 and consolidated
into one proceeding.
In the January 2, 1990 complaint, it was asserted that the owner
had failed to maintain numerous services in the subject building
including, but not limited to, a "broken", "sunken" sidewalk.
All three complaints were served on the owner.
In an answer filed on December 21, 1989 and another dated January
24, 1990, the owner denied the allegations as set forth in the
tenants' complaint and otherwise asserted that repairs had been
performed and completed.
Thereafter, the subject building was inspected on September 7,
1990 by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of
twelve items of decreased building-wide services, including a
sidewalk broken in several areas.
On October 9, 1990, a copy of the inspection report which
includes the finding of the sidewalk "broken in several areas"
was mailed to "New Heights (625) Ltd. Partnership, 184 Joraleman
FI 530239 RO
Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201". The owner failed to respond to
The subject building was inspected again on January 30, 1991 by a
DHCR staff member who confirmed the continued existence of a
On February 25, 1991, a copy of the inspection report was mailed
to "Shomer Management, 449 Broadway, New York, NY 10013, "
allowing the owner the opportunity to correct the defective
conditions and submit proof of compliance.
In an answer filed on March 27, 1991, the owner stated that "all
work was done."
On April 19, 1991, a third on-site inspection of the premises was
conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported that the sidewalk
disrepair continues to exist.
Based on the latest inspection, the Administrator found "the
sidewalk in front of the building broken in various areas," di-
rected restoration of services and further ordered a reduction
for all rent-controlled tenants in t e building and all rent-
stabilized tenants who joined in the complaint.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that as owner
and manager of the premises in question since August 1, 1989, it
has not received any complaint or decision from DHCR regarding
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
The owner's allegation of lack of notice is not credible when the
record reveals that the complaints (which mentioned the need for
sidewalk repairs) were sent to the owner at the correct address.
In fact, the owner responded to the tenants' complaints in
answers filed on December 21, 1989 and January 24, 1990. In
response to a copy of an inspection report (which mentioned the
defective sidewalk) properly mailed to the owner on February 25,
1991, the owner filed an answer on March 27, 1991 stating that
all work was done." A subsequent on-site inspection of the
subject premises on April 19, 1991 contradicted the owner's
Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code, provides:
"A tenant may apply to the DHCR for a reduc-
tion of the legal regulated rent to the level
in effect prior to the most recent guidelines
adjustment, and the DHCR shall so reduce the
rent for the period for which it is found
that t e owner has failed to maintain re-
Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include
FI 530239 RO
repairs and maintenance.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based his
determination on the entire record; including the results of the
three on-site physical inspections and that pursuant to Section
2523.4(a) of the Code, the administrator was mandated to reduce
the rent upon determining that the owner had failed to maintain
Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations provides
that if the owner fails to maintain services, t e Rent Adminis-
trator may order a decrease in the maximum rent in an amount
which the Rent Administrator, in his discretion, may determine.
The record in the instant ca e reveals that the tenants com-
plained about certain conditions at the premises and physical
inspections of the premises confirmed that these conditions
The Commissioner notes that while the owner questio s the find-
ings of fact, the record clearly reflects those findings by
virtue of the many inspections which occurred in this case.
Moreover, the owner had sufficient time from the date of service
of the tenants' complaints until the issuance of t e Administra-
tor's order to investigate the tenants' complaints and to make
the necessary repairs, but failed to do so.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator
properly determined that the owner had not corrected conditions
and for this reason, rent reductions are warranted.
The owner may file an application for rent restoration if the
sidewalk has already been repaired.
THEREFORE, in accordan e with the Rent and Eviction Regula-
tions for New York City, and the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner