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.: GH110128RO
MAYA REALTY ASSOCIATES, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: EG110633S
64-34 102nd St.
PETITIONER Rego Park, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on July 27, 1992 concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.
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 July 24, 1990 by filing a
complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment.
In its answer, the owner asserted in substance that "all the needed
work was completed but the tenant refused to sign for the work."
Attached to the answer in relevant part was a copy of a painter's
affidavit, which stated that on June 12 and June 27, 1990 he
attempted access to do repairs but was refused by the tenant; and
that on August 16 and 17, 1990 he "did all the scraping, plastering
and painting of the full apartment". There was also a copy of an
affidavit from the building superintendent who alleged that he never
received any complaint from the tenant.
In reply, the tenant alleged that "the apartment had leaks and paint
coming out of the walls and ceilings"; that the refrigerator is
broken; and that defective conditions still exist.
A Notice of Inspection (For Access) was mailed to the parties
concerned, instructing both the owner and/or his repair person(s) to
be present at the apartment "on July 16, 1992 at 11:00 AM so as to
provide access to the owner for the purposes of attending to repairs
and/or restoration of services at this time." The notice further
states in relevant part:
Failure of the owner and/or his repair person(s)
to be present and ready to attend to repairs and/
or restore services, or failure of the tenant to
keep this appointment will result in a determination
based solely on the evidence presently in the record.
Thereafter, an inspection (for access) was conducted on July 16,
1992 by a DHCR inspector who reported that the owner/management
failed to keep the appointment; the walls and ceilings of the
kitchen, hallway and bedroom closets were not painted; the hallway
wall above the bathroom door is bulged; the refigerator kick plate
is loose; the panel inside the refrigerator on the right is cracked;
the refrigerator's exterior body on the right side is rusty; the
freezer's temperature is 6 F; the temperature in the food
compartment is 38 F; the walls and ceiling in the bathroom are
bulged, stained and peeling paint in various areas; and that the
entrance steps to the living room are loose and shaking when stepped
In the record is the inspector's signed statement: "Attached find a
copy of the daily work schedule which establishes I was at the Apt.
7B, 64-34 102nd. St., Queens, from 11:00AM to 11:30AM doing
inspection on July 16, 1992" with the subject tenant.
On July 27, 1992, the Administrator directed the restoration of
services and ordered a reduction of the stabilized rent based on
these services not maintained:
entrance steps to the living room;
body of the refrigerator;
refrigerator and freezer temperature;
bathroom ceiling; and
In its petition for administrative review, the owner repeats the
allegations in the proceeding below that the tenant refused access
and that repairs were completed. The owner also contends for the
first time on appeal that on the scheduled inspection for access on
July 16, 1992 the building manager and the building superintendent
waited for the inspector between the hours of 10:45 AM and 12:00
noon; that "nobody showed up"; and that DHCR was informed about this
On September 1, 1992, DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the
tenant who filed an answer stating that the inspector was present at
the scheduled inspection for access; and that the owner or its
representative was not there.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
The Administrator properly relied on the inspector's report that on
the scheduled inspection for access, the owner/management failed to
keep the appointment. The Administrator was correct in relying on
the findings of a DHCR staff member who has no interest in the
outcome of this proceeding, and not on the self-serving,
unsubstantiated assertions of an interested party to this
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
services. The owner's petition does not establish any basis for
modifying or revoking the Administrator's order 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 a rent reduction is warranted.
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 Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied; and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA