STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
----------------------------------x SJR #:6836 Mandamus
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: GI610191RO
DOCKET NO.: GA630091B
Multiverse Real Estate, Inc.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 30, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner filed
a petition for administrative review of an order issued on
September 16, 1992, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodation known as 1064 Carroll Place, Bronx, New York,
Apartment 4-A, wherein the Administrator determined that the owner
was not maintaining certain services and ordered that the rent for
the subject apartment be reduced to the level in effect prior to
the last rent guideline increase which commenced before the
effective date of the order.
Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed a petition in the
nature of mandamus in the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of
the Civil Practice Law and Rules. The Court directed the Division
to expeditiously issue a determination of the petitioner's
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issue raised by the administrative appeal.
The tenant filed a complaint of decrease in building-wide
services on January 14, 1992, in which, she alleged, among other
things, that the front entrance door was not secure and the
elevator does not operate properly.
The owner filed an answer to the complaint, on February 15,
1992, alleging that all repairs were made. Included with the
answer was a copy of an invoice describing repairs made to the
vestibule door on December 6, 1991.
The building was inspected on June 4, 1992 and revealed that
the vestibule door did not close, the door frame was out of
alignment, the door check was broken, and the lock was defective.
The inspector reported that the intercom works in conjunction with
the vestibule door.
The owner was notified of the results of the inspection and
afforded an opportunity to correct the defective conditions.
A second inspection on August 6, 1992 again revealed that the
vestibule door lock was defective.
Based on that inspection, the Administrator directed the owner
to restore services and further ordered a rent reduction.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserts, in pertinent part,
that the front door lock has been repaired many times and that it
is not possible to keep the lock in repair 24 hours a day, seven
days a week. The owner enclosed a copy of a letter dated January
18,1992 advising the tenants of the owner's intention to install a
new magnetic lock.
The petition was served on the tenant on October 23, 1992 and
the tenant did not answer the petition.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, requires the
DHCR to order a rent reduction upon application by a tenant where
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.
A review of the file reveals that at the time of the
inspection on August 6, 1992, front door vestibule door lock was
The owner's statement on appeal that "there are intervals
between repairs and one of these intervals evidently occurred on
August 6, 1992" is an admission that repairs to the front door lock
are repeatedly required and the owner's expressed intention to
install a more secure lock evinces the need to correct the
condition in a more effective manner.
The record reveals that the owner did not submit any evidence
that the service deficiency noted in the inspection report had been
corrected prior to the issuance of the appealed order.
It is apparent that the owner had ample opportunity to make
the repair in a workmanlike manner, but had failed to do so before
the issuance of the Rent Administrator's order.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator
properly based the determination on the entire record, including
the results of the on-site physical inspection conducted on August
6, 1992 and that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the
rent reduction ordered by the Administrator, based on a
determination that the owner had failed to maintain services, was
warranted. The owner has offered insufficient reason to disturb
the Rent Administrator's determination.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is,
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately apply
for a rent restoration.
Joseph A. D'Agosta