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.:
KINGS REALTY COMPANY,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named petitioner-owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on June 22, 1988
concerning the housing accommodation known as 861 East 27th Street,
Apartment 3-I, Brooklyn, New York, relating to the above-described
The commissioner has reviewed all of 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 the proceeding also by filing a complaint
dated October 17, 1987, asserting that the owner had failed to
maintain certain services in the subject apartment.
In an answer, the owner denied the allegations set forth in the
complaint or otherwise asserted that all required repairs had been
completed and personally inspected by the owner.
Thereafter an inspection of the subject apartment was conducted on
April 27, 1988 by a Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR) inspector, who confirmed the existence of the following
1. Bathroom was repaired in an unworkmanlike
manner. Loose plaster and wallpaper still
2. Bedroom has one broken window pane.
3. Living room has one broken window pane.
Based on this inspection, the Rent Administrator directed restora-
tion of these services and further ordered a reduction of the
In its petition for administrative review, the owner states, in
substance, that the bathroom was repaired, as well as the broken
windows long before the rent reduction order was issued. The owner
enclosed a signed statement with the PAR stating that on March 12,
1988, the cracks caused by water damage to the ceilings in the
living room and bedroom were plastered and painted; and caulking
was done around the radiator pipe in the bathroom.
The Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) served a copy
of the petition on the tenant on August 23, 1988.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is
required to order the rent reduction, upon application by the
tenant, where it is found that the 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 rent
reduction is warranted.
The tenant's signed statement does not mention any of the condi-
tions cited in the rent reduction order. Moreover, no evidence of
repairs was submitted to the Administrator before the order was
The Administrator's order was properly based on an April 27, 1988
on-site inspection which confirmed that the bathroom was repaired
in an unworkmanlike manner and the bedroom and living room have
broken windows. Accordingly, the determination was in all respects
proper and is hereby sustained.
The owner may file a rent restoration application if the facts so
warrant. The rent will not be restored until a rent restoration
application is filed and granted.
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
and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby, is
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA