BL410158RT/BL410159RT/CB430033RT
                                  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 NOS.: 
                                                  BL410158RT/BL410159RT
                                                  CB430033RT
          CAROL ULE, TENANT REPRESENTATIVE        RENT
          HENRY JACOBY, TENANT                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: AK430093OR
                                 PETITIONERS            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               The above referenced administrative appeals have been 
          consolidated as all contain similar issues of law and fact.

               The above named petitioner-tenants filed timely Petitions for 
          Administrative Review against an order of the Rent Administrator 
          issued October 25, 1987. The order concerned various housing 
          accommodations located at 305 Riverside Drive, New York, N.Y.  The 
          Administrator granted the owner's application for rent restoration.  

               The Commissioner initially notes that thirty-five individual 
          tenants filed administrative appeals from the Administrator's 
          order. These petitions were rejected by the Commissioner with leave 
          to refile.  The tenant representative, who had filed an 
          administrative appeal which was assigned Docket No. BL410519RT, 
          refiled the identical appeal on behalf of these tenants.  The 
          refiled administrative appeal was assigned Docket No. CB430033RT. 
          Since the administrative appeals in Docket Nos. BL410159RT and 
          CB430033RT are identical they are consolidated for purposes of 
          decision herein.  The petition of the individual tenant is also 
          consolidated for decision as stated above.

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

               The owner commenced this proceeding on November 3, 1986 by 
          filing an application for rent restoration wherein he alleged that 
          he had restored services for which a rent reduction order had been 
          issued by the Administrator (Docket No. LCS000579B).

               The tenants were served with a copy of the application and 
          afforded an opportunity to respond. Various tenants filed responses 












          BL410158RT/BL410159RT/CB430033RT

          wherein, in sum, they urged that the application be denied because 
          the owner had not fully restored services. 
           
               To resolve the conflicting allegations of the parties, the 
          Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspection was conducted on June 24, 1987 and 
          revealed that the exterior of the building was in good condition; 
          that the public area windows and window frames were in good 
          condition; that there was no evidence of the steel lintels being 
          rusted; that the fencing in the front and side of the building was 
          in good condition, was not rusted and had been painted; and that 
          there was no visible evidence of infestation in the public areas.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          October 28, 1987 and granted the owner's application.  For rent 
          controlled tenants, rent restoration was ordered effective November 
          1, 1987.  For rent stabilized tenants, rent restoration was ordered 
          effective February 1, 1987, plus all lawful subsequent increases.

               Administrative appeals from the Administrator's order have 
          been filed by one rent controlled tenant and by an authorized 
          tenant representative.  The Commissioner notes that the individual 
          tenant also joined in the filing submitted by the representative.
          In his petition, the individual tenant states that the lintels have 
          not been repaired and remain hazardous and that other work done by 
          the owner was not done adequately.  The petition was served on the 
          owner on January 29, 1988.  The owner did not file a response.

               The representative states that the responses submitted by the 
          tenants to the owner's application make clear that services were 
          never fully restored, that the tenants were not given notice of the 
          inspection, an opportunity to be present or to comment on the 
          results and that partial repairs are not sufficient to warrant 
          granting a rent restoration application.  The tenants also seek 
          clarification of the effective dates of the rent restoration and of 
          the retroactive effect of the order.  The petition was served on 
          the owner on January 29, 1988.  The owner filed a response on March 
          28, 1988 wherein he stated that he had proven that he had restored 
          building services, that the physical inspection confirmed this to 
          be true and that his attempts to collect rent increases have been 
          lawful.

               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitions should be denied.

               The petition of the individual tenant contains two wholly 
          unproven statements.  Numerous prior orders of the Commissioner 
          have stated that a DHCR inspection is entitled to more probative 
          weight than the unsupported allegations of a party to the 
          proceeding.  Since this tenant has offered no proof in support of 
          his allegations, the petition is denied.







          BL410158RT/BL410159RT/CB430033RT

               Similarly, the petition of the representative does nothing 
          more than to restate the allegations contained in the various 
          tenant responses to the application.  The tenants have offered no 
          proof to rebut the inspector's report which found that all  
          necessary repairs have been completed. 

               With regard to the claim that the tenants were entitled to 
          notice of the inspection, an opportunity to be present and an 
          opportunity to comment, it is the policy of the DHCR that the 
          service of a rent restoration application on the tenants puts the 
          tenants on notice of the owner's allegations of repairs and affords 
          them an opportunity to respond.  There is no due process right to 
          notice of a DHCR inspection, an opportunity to be present or to 
          comment.  The courts have upheld this policy with regard to owners 
          (see Empress Garden Apartments v. DHCR 147 A.D.2d 642, 538 N.Y.S.2d 
          38 [2nd. Dept., 1989], and the same principles are applicable to 
          tenants.

               The tenants have requested clarification of the effective 
          dates for rent restoration contained in the Administrator's order, 
          stating that the owner is attempting to collect retroactive rent 
          arrears.  With regard to rent controlled tenants, the Commissioner 
          notes that pursuant to Section 2202.2 of the Rent and Eviction 
          Regulations, a rent adjustment may not be effective prior to the 
          date on which the order was issued.  With regard to rent stabilized 
          tenants, it is agency policy to order rent restoration effective 
          the first rent payment date following service of the owner's 
          application on the tenants.  The Administrator correctly ordered 
          rent restoration for the rent controlled and rent stabilized 
          tenants of this building.  This order is issued without prejudice 
          to the filing of rent overcharge complaints by any tenant who 
          believes the owner is collecting an improper rent.  The order here 
          under review is affirmed.

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

               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