ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: ART - 11427 - Q
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.:
ART - 11427 - Q
:
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
QS 00021 - OR
GEORGE YANISH
PREMISES: 93-43 222nd
Street, Apt. 1G,
PETITIONER : Queens Village, NY
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenant timely filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on May 28, 1986 concerning
the housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
number wherein the Administrator granted the owner's application
for rent restoration based on a finding that the defective
conditions had been corrected.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order
was warranted.
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 owner commenced this proceeding by filing an application
to restore rent dated July 31, 1985. The owner alleged that
services for which a rent reduction order (Docket Number CDR
00329/ARL 00358-Q) was issued on July 13, 1984 had been restored by
the complete painting of the apartment in March 1985.
On August 14, 1985, the Division sent the tenant a copy of the
owner's application and the tenant filed on August 20, 1985 an
answer advising in substance that the status of the owner's
previous "certification of maintaining all services is unresolved."
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: ART - 11427 - Q
On November 13, 1985 and November 21, 1985, a Division staff
member made physical inspections of the subject apartment and
reported inter alia that the "apartment appears to be recently
painted."
On May 28, 1986, the Administrator issued the order hereunder
review, granting the application and restoring rent effective
September 1, 1985.
In this petition, the tenant contends in substance that the
painting "was not done in a workmanlike manner"; that "no
inspection was made prior to the issuance of the order; and that he
was not served the owner's application.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
denied.
Review of the evidence of record shows that the Administrator
based his determination on the entire record, including the results
of the Division's November 13 and 21, 1985 inspection reports which
identified and corroborated the owner's painting of the apartment.
In addition, the record reveals that the tenant was served with the
owner's application and the tenant filed on August 20, 1985 an
answer.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator
correctly determined that the owner had restored services and
properly granted the owner's application.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that the tenant's 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
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
