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.:
SOLGAR REALTY RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
c/o BARRY SKOLNICK, DOCKET NO.:
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 27, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner timely refiled
a petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
March 6, 1992, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodations known as 111 15th Street, Brooklyn, New York,
Various Apartments, wherein the Administrator determined that a
reduction in rent was warranted based upon a reduction in hot-water
services. The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered the portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced
the rent of the subject apartments.
On November 25, 1991, the tenants filed a complaint alleging that
the owner was not maintaining heat and hot water services in the
The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging that the
tenants' complaint was not true.
A Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspection
conducted on January 28, 1992, revealed that heating services were
being maintained but that the hot-water temperature was inadequate.
More specifically, the inspector found that hot-water temperatures
range from 110@ to 117@.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
work on the hot water boiler was in progress at the time of the
inspection and that there was never a hot water problem in the
The petition was served on the tenants on May 11, 1992 and in May
and September 1992, the tenants filed answers to the petition
stating that the hot water temperature was still inadequate.
The owner sur-replied on August 19, 1992, stating that a new water
heating tank was installed and that hot water services were being
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 to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR) for a reduction of the legal regulated rent to the level in
effect prior to the most recent guidelines adjustment, and the DHCR
shall so reduce the rent for the period for which it is found that
the owner has failed to maintain required services.
Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include heat
and hot water.
For rent controlled tenants, Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Evic-
tion Regulations provides that a finding that an owner failed to
maintain essential services may result in an order of decrease in
maximum rent, in an amount determined by the discretion of the Rent
Administrator, to reflect the decreased rental value because of the
decrease in services.
Housing Maintenance Code regulations relating to supply of hot
water provide as follows:
Section 27-2031 Supply of hot water when required:
Except as otherwise provided in this article, every bath,
shower, washbasin and sink in any dwelling unit in a
multiple dwelling . . . . . . . . . . shall be supplied
at all times (between the hours of six a.m. and midnight)
with hot water at a constant minimum temperature of 120@
Fahrenheit from a central source constructed in
accordance with provisions of the building code and the
regulations of the department.
A review of the file clearly shows that the owner failed to provide
hot water services for apartments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 15.
The inspection report finding inadequate hot water services
confirms the tenants' complaint that the owner failed to meet the
standard set forth in Section 27-2031 of the Housing Maintenance
The owner did not submit any evidence that the deficiencies noted
on the inspector's report were completed in a workmanlike manner at
the time of the DHCR's inspection or at any time prior to the
issuance of the Administrator's order.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based his
determination on the entire record, including the results of the
on-site physical inspection conducted on January 28, 1992, and that
pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, and Section 2202.16 of
the Rent and Eviction Regulations, the Administrator was mandated
to reduce the rent upon determining that the owner had failed to
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the owner has offered
insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's determina-
The Division's records reveal that the owner's rent restoration
application was granted on October 26, 1993 (Docket No.
As regards the rent stabilized tenants, 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, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA