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.:FC110043RO
Michael Pistilli, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
58-35 Granger Street
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN
PART AND MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on February 28, 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 September 17, 1990 by filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment.
In answer, the owner asserted that the apartment was being scheduled
for repair on October 30, 1990.
On November 16, 1990, the owner submitted a copy of a work order
wherein the foreman and the tenant signed acknowledging completion
of repairs on October 30, 1990.
Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted on January 15, 1991 by a DHCR inspector who confirmed that
the kitchen cabinets had mice droppings, that the peephole of the
apartment entrance door was defective, that the apartment intercom
was inoperative, and that the bathroom towel racks were broken.
By an order dated February 28, 1991, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that all work was
done on October 30, 1990 when the tenant signed an acknowledgement
of completed repairs.
DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be granted in part and that the Administrator's
order should be modified accordingly.
Based on the tenant's signed statement that all repairs had been
completed, the owner could reasonably assume that no further action
was required and that the processing before DHCR would be terminated
without a rent reduction. Due process requires that the tenant's
statement, if submitted by the owner, be served on the tenant and,
if challenged, that the owner be advised that the complaint was not
In the instant case, the physical inspection revealed that, contrary
to the owner's allegations and the statement allegedly signed by the
tenant, the necessary repairs were not done and could not possibly
have been done properly on October 30, 1990 if four months later,
the kitchen cabinets had mice droppings, the peephole of the
apartment entrance door was defective, the apartment intercom was
inoperative, and the bathroom towel racks were broken.
A rent reduction for these conditions is required pursuant to
Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, but because of the
failure to verify the tenant's signature on the signed work order or
to advise the owner that the complaint was not being terminated, the
effective date of the rent reduction is hereby modified to March 1,
1991, the first of the month following issuance of the
Administrator's order, when the owner had actual knowledge that the
complaint was still active and that DHCR's physical inspection
revealed the need for additional repairs.
The owner's rent restoration application (FC110055OR) was granted on
August 15, 1991.
Rent arrears may be due the owner from the tenant as a result of
this Order and Opinion. Any arrears shall be paid in monthly
installments which shall not exceed the amount of the monthly rent
reductions revoked herein.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in
part, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
modified in accordance with this Order and Opinion.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA