BI 110203 RT
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 110203 RT
:DRO DOCKET NO. ZAE-110016-OR
CLARA MADAGHIELE ZQ-001145-S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 9, 1987, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
August 27, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall
Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations
known as 255-07 75th Avenue, Queens, New York, Apartment No. 1,
wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the conditions for
which the rent was reduced effective January 1, 1985 had been
corrected and restored the rent effective June 1, 1986.
The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the
provisions of Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order
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.
A review of the record indicated that on January 17, 1986 and
effective January 1, 1985 the Rent Administrator under dock t ZQ-
001145-S issued an order reducing the rent based upon the
following service decreases: bathtub peeling paint from previous
bathtub spraying and bathroom ceiling and walls have black marks
coming through ceiling and walls.
In May, 1986, the owner filed an application to restore the
rent based on a restoration of services. On June 30, 1987, an
inspection was conducted at the subject apartment. Such
inspection disclosed that the bathtub has been reglazed in a
workmanlike manner and that the bathroom ceiling and walls have
been repaired in a workmanlike manner.
On August 27, 1987, the Rent Administrator issued the order
under appeal herein restoring the rent previously reduced
effective June 1, 1986.
In this petition, the tenant alleges in substance that
BI 110203 RT
although the repair work has now been completed, it was not
completed as of June 1, 1986 so that the rent should not have been
restored effective June 1, 1986. The tenant further alleges that
an inspection conducted at the subject apartment in June 1986
disclosed al repairs were not made. In support of such
contention, the tenant submitted a copy of an order in another
proceeding - docket QS-004029-S - in which it was stated
"Inspection reveals the following: 1. Bathroom ceiling is moldy.
2. Bathtub finish is peeling."
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
An examination of the record in this case discloses that the
rent was correctly restored based on the June 30, 1987 inspection
which disclosed services were restored. The effective date of the
rent restoration was correctly held to be June 1, 1986 - the first
of the month following the May 1986 filing of the owner's rent
restoration application. It is noted that the inspection referred
to in the June 17, 1986 order cited by the tenant in her petition
actually occurred on January 30, 1986 - prior to the time the
owner filed its rent restoration application. Accordingly, the
Rent Administrator's order was warranted.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and
the same hereby is, denied, and, that the order of the Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
BI 110203 RT