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.:
MING SUN REALTY CORP.,
C/O KENNETH CHIN RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
AND REVOKING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On September 4, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
August 4, 1992, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 123 Mott Street, New York, New York, apart-
ment 5, wherein the Administrator determined that a $5.00 per month
reduction in rent was warranted based upon a reduction in services.
The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of 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 apartment based upon a diminution of
On January 14, 1992, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that
there was a building fire on December 15, 1991, which caused broken
windows, holes in the floor and walls, peeling wall plaster and a
The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging that although
a fire partially damaged the apartment on December 15, 1991, the
apartment was fully renovated to the tenant's satisfaction,
including new electrical wiring, outlets and switches.
A Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspection
conducted on April 4, 1992, revealed that all services were being
maintained with the exception of small bedroom wall switch and
leaking kitchen faucet. Based on this report, the Rent Adminis-
trator issued the rent reduction order.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserts, in pertinent part, that
the services which were the subject of the Rent Administrator's
rent reduction order of August 4, 1992, were not mentioned in the
tenant's complaint, and as such should not have been the basis of
a reduction in rent.
The petition was served on the tenant on October 1, 1992 and on
October 14, 1992, the tenant filed an answer to the petition
reaffirming that the bedroom wall switch is defective along with
sundry other repairs.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be granted.
For rent controlled tenants, Section 2202.16 of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations provides that a finding that an owner failed
to maintain services may result in an order of decrease in maximum
rent, in an amount determined by the discretion of the Rent
A review of the record reveals that the tenant's complaint failed
to specify those service items which were the subject of the Rent
Administrator's rent reduction order of August 4, 1992. The
complaint made no reference whatsoever to a defective bedroom wall
light switch or to a leaking kitchen faucet or even to defective
wiring or plumbing.
Moreover, the DHCR inspector found that the subject apartment was
being maintained in all respects, except for the two service items
noted in the Rent Administrator's rent reduction order.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator
erred by reducing the rent based upon the owner's failure to
maintain the bedroom wall switch and the leaking kitchen faucet.
If the tenant is of the opinion that these two services are
wanting, he may file a new service complaint with the Rent Adminis-
Any arrears due as a result of this order may be paid in install-
ments of $5.00 per month until all arrears are repaid.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted,
and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby, is
revoked in accordance with this Order and Opinion.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA