BI 110063 RO
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
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: BI 110063 RO
HARRY OTTERMAN DISTRICT RENT
NO.: AJ 110002 OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 4, 1987 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued July 31, 1987. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt 6G located at 41-16 47th Avenue,
Sunnyside, N.Y. The Administrator denied the owner's application
to restore rent.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The owner commenced this proceeding on September 29, 1986 by
filing an Application to Restore Rent wherein he alleged that the
tenant has refused to permit him to restore services which formed
the basis of a rent reduction order bearing Docket No. Q 003807 S.
Specifically, the owner stated that the tenant refused to provide
access to a contractor who was ready to paint the living room
ceiling. The application also took issue with the underlying rent
reduction order, which stated that the ceiling in question was
water stained from a water leak. The owner stated that the tenant
had installed stucco on the ceiling but that the installation was
defective and left grey patches which accounted for the "stains"
reported by the inspector. Finally, the owner stated that a
painting contractor had visited the subject apartment in March,
1986 but that the tenant refused to permit the contractor to paint
the living room and kitchen. Annexed to the application are a
paid bill, cancelled check and sworn affidavit from the painting
contractor. The affidavit states that the tenant did not allow the
contractor to paint the kitchen and living room, telling him "she
would take care of these rooms herself".
The tenant was served with a copy of the complaint and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The tenant filed a response on
BI 110063 RO
October 22, 1986 and stated that the owner had not repaired the
water leak and that it would have been ridiculous to allow the
ceiling to be painted when the leak had not been repaired and the
ceiling would become waterlogged again.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on February 23, 1987 and
revealed that part of the living room ceiling and adjacent wall
were water stained and that the ceiling on the opposite side is
bulging due to water seepage from the roof.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on July
31, 1987 and denied the owner's application based on the
On appeal the owner, through counsel, states that there is no
leak in the living room ceiling, that the ceiling is not water
stained, that a new roof had been installed to correct the water
seepage problem, that the "water stains" were caused by work done
by the tenant, that the owner's painting contractor was not allowed
to paint the kitchen and living room, and that the owner was
entitled to notice of the inspection and a copy of the report.
The tenant filed a response on December 9, 1987 and stated
that the ceiling is still water stained, that no decorative work
has been done to the ceiling and that access was not denied to the
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the owner filed an administrative
appeal of the underlying rent reduction order (Docket No. ARL 12284
Q). In that appeal, the owner essentially raises the same
arguments he now raises regarding the denial of the rent
restoration application. The Commissioner notes that, on May 26,
1989 an Order and Opinion Denying Petition for Administrative
Review was issued regarding the appeal for the rent reduction
order. The owner's arguments were rejected by the Commissioner.
The instant application is merely an attempt to reargue claims
which have been rejected. Since the matter is res judicata and
since the owner has not stated any independent grounds for
overturning the order here under review, the order is affirmed.
The Commissioner notes that the owner has refiled for rent
restoration and said application was granted on May 27, 1988 (see
Docket No. BL 110066 OR).
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
BI 110063 RO
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner