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.:
95 EASTERN PARKWAY INC.,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 7, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition
for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on December 13,
1991, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommoda-
tions known as 326 Lincoln Place, Brooklyn, New York, various
apartments. The petition is being accepted as a timely filing even
though it was not filed within 35 days of issuance of the
Administrator's order because the Division's records reveal that
the order being appealed was not sent to the registered owner, as
required. In the appealed order, the Administrator determined that
a diminution of service had occurred and reduced the rent to the
level in effect prior to the last rent guideline increase which
commenced before the effective date of the order. Based on an
inspection held on November 19, 1991 the rent was reduced because
of the following service deficiencies:
Hot water not being provided because hot water
temperature was found to be below the required
The Rent Administrator also directed restoration of all services.
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 issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced
the rent of the subject apartments.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner alleged that the tenants' com-
plaints about heat and hot water referred to temporary service
disruptions caused by attempts to correct the conditions on
November 18, 1991, November 19, 1991 and November 20, 1991.
The petition was served on the tenants on April 16, 1992.
Various tenants answered the petition alleging among other things
that the heat and hot water services in the subject premises were
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code, a
tenant may apply for a reduction of the legal regulated rent and
the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) shall so
reduce the rent for the period for which it is found that the owner
has failed to maintain required services as defined in Section
2520.6(r) to include heat and hot water.
A review of the record on appeal shows that the owner's petition
contains the following statement:
"Although DHCR had sent the Notice to owner of
filing tenants' complaint to the wrong ad-
dress, the Post Office at that time forwarded
it to the new address".
The Commissioner notes that not only was the owner notified of the
proceedings before the Rent Administrator but it had actually filed
an answer on June 1, 1991 stating that:
"A new boiler and burner have been installed.
All other problems listed have been elimi-
Accordingly, it is clear that the owner had adequate notice of the
proceedings before the Rent Administrator and that it was accorded
sufficient time to complete all repairs but had failed to do so.
The Commissioner has also considered the owner's claim that the
heat and hot water deficiencies specified in the tenants' complaint
were mere temporary service interruptions caused by the owner's
attempts to correct the conditions and rejects this argument.
It is apparent that the tenants' building-wide complaint was filed
on May 7, 1991, well before the alleged temporary hot-water service
disruptions and that the pattern of service interruption specified
therein antedated the dates of temporary interruption (November 18,
1991 through November 20, 1991) by many months. Moreover, the
physical inspection of the building by the DHCR on November 19,
1991, revealed inadequate hot water.
The Commissioner finds, therefore, that the petitioner was not
deprived of its due process rights; that the petitioner's claim of
temporary service interruption is inconsistent with the facts
established herein and that the Administrator properly based his
determination on the entire record, including the results of the
on-site inspection conducted in the subject building.
The Division's records indicate that the owner subsequently applied
for a restoration of rent which is pending under Docket No.
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted
by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this
Order and Opinion.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabili-
zation Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA