ART13371Q/AI110122RT
                                  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
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NO.: 
                                                  ART13371Q
                                                  AI110122RT
          FLORA P. WELSH                          RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: QS000183OR
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               The above referenced administrative appeals have been 
          consolidated for decision herein since both contain identical 
          issues of law and fact.

               The above named petitioner-tenant filed a Petition for 
          Administrative Review against an order of the Rent Administrator 
          issued August 22, 1986.  The appeal was assigned Docket No. 
          ART13371Q.  A duplicate copy of the petition was erroneously 
          assigned a separate docket number (AI110122RT).  The appeals have 
          been consolidated as stated above.  The order of the Administrator 
          concerned housing accommodations known as Apt. 3T located at 93-49 
          222nd Street, Queens Village, N.Y.  The Administrator issued an 
          order granting the owner's application for rent restoration.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 
          appeal.

               The owner commenced this proceeding on June 5, 1985 by filing 
          an application for rent restoration.  In that application the owner 
          alleged that the tenant had unreasonably refused to permit the 
          owner to restore services which were the basis for a rent reduction 
          order issued May 9, 1985 (Docket No. QS001405S).  The owner 
          attached an addendum to the application.  This addendum consisted 
          of a letter, dated May 13, 1985, wherein the tenant was requested 
          to provide access to the owner's representative on May 21, 1985.  
          Also attached to the application was a notarized statement by the 
          owner's representative that they had attempted to gain access to 
          the tenant's apartment on May 21, 1985 but no one answered the 
          doorbell.

               The tenant was served with a copy of the application and 












          ART13371Q/AI110122RT

          afforded an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on 
          June 28, 1985 and stated, among other things, that she was not 
          denying the owner access to the apartment and that the owner had 
          not corrected the conditions that gave rise to the rent reduction 
          order.
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on September 27, 1985 and 
          revealed that the closet door had been repaired and that the 
          bathtub drain was no longer backing up but that the drain was still 
          clogged.

               The Administrator sent a notice to the parties on October 4, 
          1985.  The parties were informed of the results of the September 27 
          inspection and the owner was afforded a final opportunity to 
          restore services.

               On October 10, 1985 the owner filed a response to the notice 
          and stated that the bathtub drain was no longer clogged.  The owner 
          attached bills and invoices from a plumbing contractor which were 
          offered in support of the owner's statement.  The Administrator 
          ordered a new inspection of the apartment.  The inspection was 
          conducted on June 10, 1986 and revealed that the drain was no 
          longer clogged.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on August 
          22, 1986 ordered the rent restored effective November 1, 1985.

               On appeal the tenant states the following grounds for reversal 
          of the Administrator's order:

                    1.   No attempt has been made to repair the decorative 
                         bathroom tiles removed to make repairs to the 
                         bathtub,

                    2.   Final repairs to the closet doors were not made 
                         until August 14, 1986

                    3.   The effective date for rent restoration ordered by 
                         the Administrator is in error,

                    4.   No inspection has been conducted with regard to 
                         missing bathroom tiles,

                    5.   The tenant never was served with copies of the 
                         owner's affirmation, certification and affidavit of 
                         compliance,

                    6.   A prior proceeding is pending before the DHCR 
                         wherein the tenant is contesting the owner's 
                         certification of services.







          ART13371Q/AI110122RT

          The petition bearing Docket No ART13371Q was served on the owner on 
          September 26, 1986.  The petition bearing Docket No. AI110122RT was 
          served on the owner on October 24, 1986.

               The owner filed a response on October 29, 1986 and stated, in 
          substance, that the tenant was harassing him, that he was 
          maintaining all required services and that the order here under 
          review should be affirmed.
           
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitions should be denied.

               It is well settled law that in order to obtain rent 
          restoration the owner must prove that the conditions cited in the 
          original rent reduction order have been corrected.  The rent 
          reduction order issued in Docket No. QS001405S stated that the rent 
          was being reduced based on a finding of a backed up bathtub and a 
          stuck closet door.  The physical inspections conducted in this rent 
          restoration proceeding revealed that both conditions were corrected 
          in a workmanlike manner.  Therefore, the Administrator correctly 
          issued the order restoring rent.  
               
               With regard to the effective date set forth, the Commissioner 
          notes that the owner filed a response to the Administrator's 
          October 10, 1985 and stated that services had been fully restored.  
          This response was duly served on the tenant.  The physical 
          inspection conducted on June 10, 1986 confirmed the owner's 
          assertion.  Therefore, the Administrator was correct in ordering 
          rent restoration effective the first rent payment date following 
          service of the response on the tenant.

               A review of the record reveals that the tenant was served with 
          the application and filed a lengthy and detailed response, 
          objecting to it.  It is clear that the tenant was on notice of this 
          proceeding.  The failure to serve the tenant with the Certification 
          (RA-62B) and Affirmation of Compliance (RA-22), even if true, does 
          not affect the validity of the rent restoration order appealed 
          herein.

               The Commissioner further notes that the fact that any other 
          proceeding is currently pending before the DHCR has no relevance to 
          the issue of the credibility of the owner in this proceeding.  Two 
          physical inspections were conducted and the rent was not ordered 
          restored until the Administrator was satisfied that all repairs 
          were done.  The order here under review is affirmed.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it 
          is 
















          ART13371Q/AI110122RT

               ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, 
          denied, and that the Rent 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