CG410176RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                                  92-31 UNION HALL
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433





          ------------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.:
                                                       CG410176RO
                    Lemle & Wolff, Inc.,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:
                                                       BH510600S

                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On July 14, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on June 15, 
          1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 559 West 183rd Street, New York, N.Y., 
          Apt.#8, wherein the Administrator determined that a 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 
          services.

          On August 20, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the 
          owner failed to maintain services in the subject apartment.

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint on October 27, 1987, 
          alleging that all service items noted in the complaint have either 
          been corrected or attended to.


          A DHCR inspection conducted on April 19, 1988, revealed that the 
          following services were not being maintained:












          CG410176RO


               1.   Left and right rear stove top burners do not light.
               2.   Freezer door missing.
               3.   Bathroom ceiling has peeling paint around light fixture.
               4.   Radiator drips underneath.
               5.   Rodent infestation.
               6.   Living room ceiling and walls are cracked and peeling
                    paint and plaster.
               7.   Bulged and cracked second bedroom wall.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          the Rent Administrator failed to serve it with a notice of 
          inspection or of the results of inspection; thus depriving it of 
          the right to due process.

          The petition was served on the tenant on September 10, 1988, and on 
          September 20, 1988, and September 20, 1988, the tenant filed an 
          answer to the petition stating that although the owner eventually 
          made repairs in the subject apartment, the work was of an inferior 
          quality.

          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 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 
          repairs and maintenance.

          Concerning the petitioner-owner's argument that the Administrator 
          failed to give it notice of the inspection or the results, the 
          Commissioner finds that due process does not require that the owner 
          be informed that inspections are to take place or that it be sent 
          copies of the reports with an opportunity to rectify the condition 
          or to respond.  The owner had adequate notice from the tenants 
          complaint of conditions requiring its attention.

          The Commissioner has also considered and rejects the petitioner's 
          claim on appeal that the required repair was made prior to the 
          issuance of the Rent Administrator's order.

          A copy of the tenant's complaint was mailed to the the owner on 
          October 23, 1987, and the Rent Administrator's order was issued on 
          June 15, 1988.


          It is apparent that the owner had approximately eight (8) months to 
          attend to the complained-of conditions, but had failed to do so 
          prior to the issuance of the Rent Administrator's order.
          The inspector's report clearly showed that even if the owner 






          CG410176RO

          attempted to correct the conditions prior to the issuance of the 
          Rent Administrator's order, it had failed to do so in a workmanlike 
          manner.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the owner has offered 
          insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's 
          determination.

          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 April 19, 1988, and that 
          pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, and Administrator was 
          mandated to reduce the rent upon determining that the owner had 
          failed to maintain services.

          Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately apply for 
          a rent restoration.

          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 
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed.
            
                


          ISSUED:






                                                                     
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Deputy Commissioner  






    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name