FD120218RO;  HB120028RO

                                    STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:             
                 KREISEL COMPANY, INC.,             
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NOS.:
                                   PETITIONER     EH120069HW;
          ----------------------------------x     EI120742S              


          The above-named owner filed timely petitions for administrative 
          review (PAR) of orders issued on May 21, 1991 and January 5, 1993, 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 215-30 47th Avenue, 
          Apartment 1-E, Queens, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator 
          determined the tenants' complaint.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the records and 
          has carefully considered those portions of the records relevant to 
          the issues raised by the petitions.

          The tenants of the subject apartment commenced these proceedings by 
          filing a complaint asserting that there were fluctuation problems 
          with the hot and cold water.  The Rent Administrator established 
          Docket No. EH120069HW to process the case as a hot water complaint 
          and Docket No. EI120742S to process the water fluctuation complaint 
          separately.  The Rent Administrator served a copy of the complaint 
          on the owner in both case dockets.

          The owner responded to the complaint per Docket No. EH120069HW 
          asserting that it was served with the notice of the proceeding but 
          did not receive a copy of the complaint.  The owner denied that hot 
          water services were not provided, and submitted a copy of a memo- 
          randum signed by one of the tenant-occupants who denied filing a 
          complaint of a lack of hot water.  There is no record that the 
          owner responded to the complaint under Docket No. EI120742S.

          FD120218RO;  HB120028RO

          The DHCR conducted an inspection of the subject apartment per 
          Docket No. EH120069HW on January 22, 1991.  The inspector responded 
          that the hot water temperature was 120@ F. in the bathroom and 
          110@ F in the kitchen.  In an order dated March 21, 1991, the Rent 
          Administrator noted the results of the inspection, directed the 
          owner to restore the services and further, ordered a reduction of 
          the stabilization rent, effective December 1, 1990.

          The DHCR conducted an inspection per Docket No. EI120742S on 
          November 20, 1992.  The inspector reported that the shower water 
          temperature reached 112@ F., but that when he also turned on the 
          hot water in the kitchen, he observed some loss of the hot water 
          pressure in the shower, and a temperature fluctuation of 4@ F.  The 
          Rent Administrator issued an order dated January 5, 1993 finding 
          evidence of water fluctuation, directing the owner to restore 
          services and ordering a rent reduction effective November 1, 1990.  
          The order stated that the status of the subject unit was not known, 
          and advised the tenants to abide by the applicable rent stabiliza- 
          tion or rent control provisions.

          In the petition for administrative review of the order per Docket 
          No. EH120069HW, the owner requests that the order be reversed on 
          the grounds that the tenant had already received a rent reduction 
          for the condition in question in a prior order, per Docket No. 
          DE110398S, that services had been restored prior to issuance of the 
          order herein under review, that one of the tenants had signed a 
          statement denying that he ever complained about lack of hot water, 
          and that the owner was not served a copy of the complaint.

          In its petition for administrative review of the order per Docket 
          No. EI120742S, the owner asserts that the order also was duplica- 
          tive of the previous rent reduction order per Docket No. DE110398S,  
          that the conditions were corrected before the Rent Administrator 
          issued the order also herein under review, and that there is 
          presently no evidence of water fluctuation.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that the petitions should be denied.

          Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is 
          required to order a rent reduction, upon application by a tenant, 
          where it is found that an owner has failed to maintain required 

          The owner's claim on appeal that it never received a copy of the 

          FD120218RO;  HB120028RO

          complaint under Docket No. EH120069HW does not warrant reconsidera- 
          tion of the Rent Administrator's order below in light of the fact 
          that the owner filed an answer below addressing the specific 
          conditions cited in the complaint.  Turning to the substantive 
          issue, findings of inadequate hot water are not inconsistent with 
          a complaint of water temperature fluctuations that the tenant set 
          forth.  Consequently, the Rent Administrator's order per Docket No. 
          EH120069HW, insofar as it granted a rent reduction based on inade- 
          quate hot water, should be affirmed.

          Nor does the owner's petition per Docket No. HB120028RO  establish 
          a basis for modifying or revoking the Rent Administrator's order 
          per Docket No. EI120742S, which determined that the owner was not 
          maintaining required services based on a physical inspection 
          confirming the existence of defective conditions in the subject 
          apartment for which a rent reduction is warranted.  The inspection 
          confirmed the tenant's complaint of shower water temperature 
          fluctuation, as well as a related condition of inadequate hot water 

          The records also reveal that the orders per Docket No. EH120069HW, 
          wherein the Rent Administrator found inadequate hot water in the 
          kitchen, and Docket No. EI120742S wherein the Rent Administrator 
          found that there was evidence of shower water temperature fluctua- 
          tion, were not duplicative of a prior rent reduction order, per 
          Docket No. DE110398S, wherein the Rent Administrator found 
          inadequate hot water in the bathroom, albeit these conditions may 
          be related.  The Rent Administrator issued an order on October 15, 
          1993, per Docket No. GC110112OR, restoring the rent previously 
          reduced per Docket No. DE110398S.  The owner is correct, however, 
          that the tenants may not benefit from multiple stabilization rent 
          reductions where two or more rent reduction orders overlap.  The 
          rent is reduced retroactively by the percentage of the guideline 
          adjustment to the tenant's lease which commenced before the 
          earliest effective date of the rent reduction orders in effect.

          The owner's assertion in each appeal that repairs were made prior 
          to the date of the orders is beyond the scope of review, which is 
          strictly limited to issues and evidence presented to the Rent 
          Administrator for consideration.  

          The Rent Administrator's order per Docket No. EI120742S is amended, 
          however, to reflect that the apartment unit is subject to rent 
          stabilization, and to revoke any reference to a rent reduction 

          FD120218RO;  HB120028RO

          pursuant to rent control provisions.  The rent reduction granted 
          pursuant to rent stabilization provisions was correct.

          The owner may file rent restoration applications if the facts so  

          The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted 
          by the filing of the petitions is vacated upon issuance of this 
          order and opinion.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is

          ORDERED, that the owner's petition per Docket No. FD120218RO be, 
          and the same hereby is, denied, and that the Rent Administrator's 
          order per Docket No. EH120069HW be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed.  It is further 

          ORDERED, that the owner's petition per Docket No. HB120028RO be, 
          and the same hereby is, denied.  The Rent Administrator's order per 
          Docket No. EI120342S is amended to delete that part of the order 
          providing for a rent reduction pursuant to rent control provisions.  
          That part of the order granting a rent reduction under rent 
          stabilization provisions is affirmed.


                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                Deputy Commissioner

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name