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.: HE210056RO
TED KALLIF RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 17, 1993 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued April 15, 1993. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt. 3B located at 426 Rockaway Parkway,
Brooklyn, N.Y. The Administrator directed restoration of services
and ordered a rent reduction for failure to maintain required
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The tenant commenced this proceeding on April 1, 1991 by
filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services and
alleged, in sum, that the owner was not maintaining certain
required apartment services.
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded
an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on April 23,
1991 and stated that the tenant had withdrawn the complaint because
all repairs had been done to her satisfaction. A statement to this
effect was submitted, dated April 19, 1991, and signed by the
The tenant filed a reply on October 30,1992 and stated, in
sum, that the owner had not made the required repairs to the
apartment and that she had not withdrawn the complaint.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on February 18, 1993 and
revealed the following:
1. Three hallway floor slots were protruding through
the vinyl tiles,
2. Gap between apartment door and frame,
3. Live roaches in kitchen.
All other services were found to have been maintained.
The Administrator issued the order hereunder review on April
15, 1993 and ordered the rent reduced to the level in effect prior
to the most recent guidelines increase which commenced before the
effective date of this order (May 5, 1991).
On appeal the owner states that the tenant had denied access
to the subject apartment for an extended period but that, after
finally obtaining access, the hallway floor and door frame have
been repaired. The owner also states that the tenant refuses
access to the exterminator. The owner attached a copy of a letter
from the exterminating company which is offered to support the
contention that the tenant is refusing access to the subject
apartment. The petition was served on the tenant on June 11, 1993.
The tenant filed a response on June 18, 1993 and stated, in
sum, that the owner had not restored services and that the petition
should be denied.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code a
tenant may apply to the DHCR for a rent reduction and the rent
shall be reduced if it is found that the owner is not maintaining
required services. The Rent Stabilization Code defines required
services as those services the owner was required to maintain on
the applicable base date including repairs and maintenance.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator based this
determination on the entire record including the results of the
above described physical inspection. The owner has not rebutted
the inspector's report nor adequately supported the claim that the
tenant did not give access to the subject apartment. The owner has
made no showing of compliance with the procedures set forth in DHCR
Policy Statement 90-5 regarding the sending of letters by certified
and regular mail to the tenant scheduling appointments for access.
The Commissioner notes that the Administrator issued an order
on July 29, 1992 under Docket No. FJ211007S wherein a rent
reduction was ordered based, in part, on the conditions relating to
the hallway floor and roach infestation. Since the order hereunder
review was issued subsequent to the order in Docket No. FJ211007S,
the effective date of the rent reduction for these conditions is
the one set forth in Docket No FJ211007S. However, to obtain rent
restoration in both proceedings the owner must demonstrate that it
has restored the conditions. The order here under review is
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement which
resulted from the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance
of this order and opinion. The Commissioner notes that the owner's
rent restoration application (Docket No. IC210161OR) is pending
before the DHCR.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA