ARL11622Q
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
----------------------------------x
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: ARL11622Q
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
RICHARD ALBERT DOCKET NO.: QOO3343S
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 14, 1986, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on June
17, 1986, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 93-47 222 Street, Apt. 3R, Queens Village,
NY wherein the Administrator directed the restoration of services
and reduced the stabilized rent effective October 1, 1985.
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.
This proceeding was commenced on August 1, 1985 by the filing
of a complaint of decrease in services. An inspection conducted by
a Division employee confirmed the existence of some of the
complained of conditions resulting in the June 17, 1986 order
reducing the rent.
In the PAR, the owner contends that all services have been and
are being provided, including extermination; that the wall crack
found by the inspector is due to normal settling or is necessary
for expansion of the riser and, in any event, was not reported to
the owner's contractor when complaints of building settling were
addressed; that the tenants have signed multiple meritless
complaints in an effort to harass the owner; that water damage
inside the apartment has been or will be repaired; and that the
tenant has continuously denied access for repairs and inspections
by the owner.
The tenant interposed an answer requesting the denial of the
owner's petition.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the PAR should be
denied.
ARL11622Q
The Commissioner notes that the inspection was conducted in
response to specific items raised in the complaint and the report
was prepared by a Division employee who is not a party to the
proceeding. It was therefore appropriate for the Administrator to
rely on the inspection results in determining the outcome in this
case.
While the owner states that repairs were made with respect to
various conditions, he makes no assertion that such repairs were
made before the order was issued and his assertions that repairs
will be made in the future has no bearing on the correctness of the
Administrator's order when issued. The owner has provided no
evidence to substantiate the other allegations in the PAR.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied
and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
___________________
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|
