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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NO.:
FLORA P. WELSH RENT
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
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
The tenant was served with a copy of the application and
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
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
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
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
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
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
6. A prior proceeding is pending before the DHCR
wherein the tenant is contesting the owner's
certification of services.
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
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
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA