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
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
RICHARD COHAN/ DOCKET NO.:
4800 14TH AVE. MANAGEMENT, DF 210418-S
4800 14th Ave.,
PETITIONER Apt. 5-H, Brooklyn, N.Y.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on November 8, 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.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on June 16, 1989 by filing a
complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain numerous
services in the subject apartment.
In an answer filed on July 13, 1989, the owner asserted that some
items complained-of by the tenant had already been repaired; that
the tenant never seemed satisfied with repairs made; and that the
other defective conditions will be repaired when the tenant allows
the superintendent access.
The owner attached to his answer a copy of the tenant's complaint.
In a subsequent letter dated September 26, 1990, the tenant advised
that the owner had still had not made the necessary repairs despite
several letters and notices to the owner. The tenant attached
copies of said letters and notices.
Physical inspections of the subject apartment were conducted on
July 11, 1990 and October 8, 1991 by a Division staff member who
reported the existence of numerous defective conditions.
Based on these inspections, the Administrator determined the
following services not maintained:
* the bathroom walls,
* the intercom,
* the painting of the apartment door,
* the peephole of the apartment entry door,
* the door frame alignment of the dining
* the handle latch of the kitchen cabinet,
* the shower rod,
* the toilet medicine cabinet, and
* leaks/stains of bedroom (1).
The Administrator directed the restoration of services and further
ordered a reduction of the stabilized rent.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance non-receipt of
the tenant's complaint. The owner also contends that the Adminis-
trator's order does not state whether an inspection was made, and
without verification of the service decreases a rent reduction is
an arbitrary penalty.
In answer, the tenant states that he did inform the owner of these
defective conditions "in person, in writing, by telephone and by
agencies". The tenant submitted copies of these communications.
The tenant further states that the owner himself, along with his
parents who are affiliated with the building management, visited
his apartment and "saw these conditions".
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The owner's alleged non-receipt of the tenant's complaint is
without merit. The owner filed an answer to the tenant's complaint
in the proceeding below. The record amply shows that besides filing
the complaint with the Division, the tenant had at various times
put the owner on notice of those defective conditions.
Although the Administrator's order does not specify the two inspec-
tions, it does state that it is based on a complete review of the
record. Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code requires
DHCR to reduce the legal regulated rent, upon application by the
tenant, for the period for which it is found that the owner has
failed to maintain required services. Required services are
defined by Section 2520.6(r) to include repairs and maintenance.
In the instant case, two physical inspections of the subject
apartment were conducted on July 11, 1990 and October 8, 1991 by a
Division staff member who confirmed the existence of numerous
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the owner was sufficiently
notified of the complained-of conditions; that the owner had ample
time and opportunity to repair the defective conditions but failed
to do so; that the Administrator properly based his determination
on the entire record, including the July 11, 1990 and October 8,
1991 physical inspections: and that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a)
of the Code, a rent reduction is warranted based on the finding
that the owner has failed to maintain required services.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's
rights as they may pertain to a de novo application to the Division
for a restoration of rent based upon the restoration of services.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner