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.: GC210108RO
IBSER POINVIL RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 9, 1992 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued February 4, 1992. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt 1A located at 1014 Park Place,
Brooklyn, N.Y. The Administrator ordered a rent reduction for
failure to maintain required services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The tenant commenced this proceeding on August 22, 1991 by
filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein she
alleged the existence of various services deficiencies in the
apartment. The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and
afforded an opportunity to respond.
The owner filed a response on September 16, 1991 and stated,
in sum, that the building was undergoing major renovation, that
certain repairs had been made, that plastering and painting would
be done when the capital improvements are completed and that the
tenant was refusing access for work to be done. The owner attached
documentation to the response. This documentation consisted of an
acknowledgement by the tenant that the bathroom ceiling was
repaired as well as a leak in the ceiling, proof by the owner that
the subject building was undergoing renovation and letters written
by the owner in 1984 to the tenant wherein access to the apartment
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on January 9, 1992 and
revealed the following:
1. Bathroom ceiling in need of painting,
2. Refrigerator freezer temperature 8 degrees,
3. Bedroom closet has cracks and holes on walls,
4. One strip of wood on kitchen floor is split up,
5. Floor under and around radiator broken in living
6. Entire apartment has peeling paint and plaster,
7. Hole in wall behind bathtub. Walls were plastered
but not painted.
The following services were found to have been maintained:
1. No evidence of leaks or stains in bathroom,
2. No evidence of vermin infestation in apartment,
3. No evidence of defects to plumbing in bathroom
4. New floor installed in bathroom,
5. No evidence of defects to apartment door lock.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
February 4, 1992 ordering a rent reduction of an amount equal to
the most recent guideline adjustment based on the report of the
On appeal the owner states that the building is undergoing
capital improvement work, that the tenant has refused to afford
access to the owner although the owner made numerous demands and
that there are court proceedings presently ongoing in Housing Court
regarding the tenant's failure to give the owner access for repairs
and her failure to pay her rent. The petition was served on the
tenant on April 3, 1992.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The owner's argument is premised on the alleged failure of the
tenant to afford access to the owner's representatives for repairs
to be done. The owner has attempted to document numerous instances
of access requests being ignored by the tenant. However, it is
clear from the record that the owner has been afforded access to
the subject apartment on some occasions. Prior decisions of the
Commissioner have held that the fact that the owner has been given
access provided the owner with the required opportunity to make
workmanlike repairs to the apartment. It is clear from a review of
the report of the DHCR inspector that the owner has not done so.
The Commissioner also notes that the owner failed to avail himself
of the procedures set forth in DHCR Policy Statement 90-5 regarding
certified letters to be sent to the tenant requesting access and
submission of this documentation to the Administrator.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code a
tenant may apply to the DHCR for a rent reduction and the
Administrator shall reduce the rent based on a finding that the
owner is failing to maintain required services. Section 2520.6 (r)
of the Code includes repairs and maintenance in the definition of
required services. The Commissioner finds that the Administrator
based this determination on the entire record including the results
of the on-site physical inspection conducted on January 9, 1992.
The order here under review was correctly issued and is, therefore,
The owner may file for rent restoration when services have
been fully restored.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA