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.: FJ230010RO
: DRO ORDER NO.: FB230144B
: PREMISES: 290 Clinton Ave.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely Petition for Administrative Review of an order
issued on September 17, 1991, concerning the housing accommodations relating to the above-
described docket number.
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.
Various tenants commenced this proceeding on February 26, 1991 by filing a complaint
asserting that the owner had failed to provide extermination services for more than five
years; and that the building is infested with roaches, water bugs, rodents, mice and rats.
In an answer filed on March 28, 1991, the owner asserted in substance that
extermination services are provided by an exterminating company every second Saturday of
each month; that notices about extermination are posted throughout the building.
Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject apartment was conducted on June 27,
1991 by a DHCR staff member who reported vermin infestation in the basement of the subject
The Administrator directed restoration of services and a reduction of the stabilized
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the Brooklyn Union Gas, Con
Edison and phone company opened up the streets at that time, which caused the vermin
infestation; that the exterminating company has cleaned the vermin infestation; that the
tenant in Apartment 1A has moved out; and that the tenant in Apartment 4A is not a legal
tenant with a lease. The owner submitted no proof to these allegations.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition
should be denied.
PAR DOCKET NO.: FJ230010RO
The owner's petition is not clear whether the contention is that exterminating services
cleaned the vermin infestation in the building's basement before the
inspection or the order's issuance, or whether the contention is that these services were
rendered following the issuance of the Administrator's order. If it is the former, then
the owner's allegation is belied by the report of the DHCR inspector. If it is the latter,
then the Administrator's order reducing the rent was nevertheless correct when issued.
As to the owner's contentions that one tenant has vacated and another is not the
lawful tenant, the Commissioner finds that these allegations are without merit. A finding
of decreased services, for which a rent reduction is warranted, remains in effect for
subsequent tenants until rent restoration is granted. Its validity is not affected by the
owner's unsubstantiated allegations regarding changes in the tenancies of the affected
apartments. Accordingly, copies of this Order and Opinion are being mailed to the current
residents of the apartments involved.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's filing another
application for rent restoration, based on the removal of vermin infestation in the
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and that the
Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
Joseph A. D'Agosta