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.:
A & S REALTY CO.,/ DOCKET NO.:
CARL D. SILVERMAN EE 210229-S
70 Prospect Park So. West
PETITIONER Brooklyn, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner timely filed a petition for administrative
review of an order issued on December 30, 1991, concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
number wherein the Administrator ordered a rent reduction based on
a finding of a decrease in services.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order was
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the petition.
This proceeding was commenced on May 15, 1990 by a rent-stabilized
tenant filing a complaint of a decrease in services, alleging
inadequate heat and hot water services, a broken elevator, water
leaks, dirty incinerator room, holes in kitchen and bathroom, dirty
hallways and stairs, painting needed, defective exterior frames and
sashes, defective sink faucets and wall tiles in the bathroom.
On May 22, 1990, the Division mailed the owner a copy of the
In an answer filed on June 11, 1990, the owner stated in substance
that "all repairs have been made", and that he "is in receipt of
tenant's signed acknowledgment that all repairs are made."
The tenant informed the Division that her apartment had not been
painted in the last two years; and on July 18, 1991, the Division
requested from the tenant and the owner additional evidence con-
cerning this matter.
On July 31, 1991, the owner submitted a copy of a May 2, 1990 bill
in the amount of $900.00 for repair of the ceiling and walls and
complete painting (2 coats) and plastering.
On October 29, 1991, an on-site inspection of the subject apartment
was conducted by a Division staff member who reported that the
bathroom ceiling has peeling paint and plaster; that the two bed-
room window frames are rotted; that the living room left window
frame is rotted; and that the hot water faucet in the bathroom
On November 20, 1991, the Division mailed to the tenant a copy of
the owner's answer dated July 31, 1991.
In a reply filed on December 6, 1991, the tenant stated in
substance that the owner's bill for repair in the amount of $900.00
on May 2, 1990 is overpriced when "all the walls and ceilings were
Based on the October 29, 1991 inspection, the Administrator deter-
mined on December 30, 1991 that the bathroom ceiling, the window
sash/frame in one bedroom, the window sash/frame in the living
room, and the bathroom plumbing and faucet had not been maintained;
and that the services maintained were the kitchen ceiling and the
bathroom walls. The Administrator directed the restoration of
services and ordered a reduction of the stabilized rent to the
level in effect prior to the most recent guideline increase
effective June 1, 1990.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends in
substance that the tenant failed to inform the owner of these
conditions and purposely allowed the situation to deteriorate in
order to get a rent reduction. The owner submitted a copy of the
Administrator's order, on same was a copy of the tenant's hand-
written note and signature dated January 10, 1992 that work was
done on services not maintained.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that although the owner submitted in the
petition but not in the proceeding below before the issuance of the
order a copy of a tenant's note dated January 10, 1992 that work
was done on services not maintained, the Administrator's order was
nevertheless correct when issued. The Administrator's
determination was based upon a staff inspector's report which found
decreased services within the apartment. This determination was in
all respects proper and is hereby sustained.
The record does not support the owner's contention that it was not
informed of the complained-of conditions. The owner answered the
tenant's complaint. The owner's submitted evidence shows that
repairs were performed subsequent to issuance of the Administra-
tor's order and is thus beyond the scope of administrative review.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the grant of
the owner's application for rent restoration under Docket No. GA
The owner may apply for rent restoration based upon the restoration
of services if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA