STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
PAT-MAR MANAGEMENT CO.,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 26, 1986, the above-named petition r filed a Peti-
tion for Administrative Review against an order issued on January
22, 1986, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street,
Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodation known as
3424 Gates Place, Apt. 4-B, Bronx, New York, where n the Admin-
istrator granted the owner's application for a restoration of
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to
the issue raised by the administrative appeal.
The proceeding below was commenced on June 18, 1985 by the owner
filing an application to restore rent, alleging that the reduced
services (i.e., inadequate heat and hot water) for which a rent
reduction order had been previously issued on May 14, 1985, have
been restored to the required level.
In the order appealed from, the Administrator granted the owner's
rent restoration application in whole, restoring the rent of the
subject tenant to the amount of $301.60 per month effective
November 1, 1985.
In the petition, the owner seeks modification of the order and
asserts that the Administrator's effectuation date of the rent
restoration, November 1, 1985, is incorrect and should have been
July 1, 1985, given that the owner had filed his application on
June 18, 1985. The owner further claims that the amount of the
restored monthly rent ($301.60) should have been $328. 4 to re-
flect the current rental pursuant to a lease that was entered
into by the tenant for the term September 1, 1985 to August 30,
1987, the amount of $328.74 is said to be based on a lawful
increase [i.e., 9%] above the tenant's prior rental of 301.60.
In answer to the petition, the tenant asserts that the heat and
hot water are not fully restored.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition
should be denied.
The owner is advised that an application for a restoration of
rent which is determined to have merit will result in a rent
restoration that becomes effectuated on the first rent payment
date following service of the owner's application on the tenant.
In the instant case, DHCR served the application on the tenant on
December 17, 1985. Since t e Administrator permitted the in-
stant rent restoration to take place on November 1, 1985, the
Commissioner finds no basis to disturb this determination.
Concerning the amount of the rent restoration, at the time of the
May 14, 1985 order of rent reduction,, the subject tenant was
paying a monthly rent of $301.60. Accordingly, the Administrator
correctly restored the rent to $301.60 in the instant order.
Prior to the effectuation date of the rent restoration order, the
owner was not entitled to collect any rent above the level set by
the May 14, 1985 order of rent reduction; however, subsequent to
the effectuation date, the owner was entitled to the restored
rent plus any lawful rent increases such as that created by the
September 1, 1985, renewal lease.
The tenant is advised that the subject order was properly based
on the owner's statements and affirmations in t e rent restora-
tion application concerning repairs to the boiler as well as the
complainant's affirmation of such repairs. However, this order
is issued without prejudice to the tenant's right to file a new
complaint for a reduction in services if the facts warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, 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
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner