BL 610063 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. BL 610063 RO
Magnetone Enterprises Corp., DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR
DOCKET NO. AH 610017 OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 5, 1987, the above-named owner filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on November 6, 1987 by a
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as
Apt. #21, 1236 Grand Concourse, Bronx, New York.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to
the issues raised by the petition for review.
On August 4, 1986, the owner commenced this proceeding by filing
an application to restore rent based on the restoration of
In her answer, filed on September 12, 1986, the tenant asserted
that repairs had not been made.
On September 30, 1987, an agency inspection of the subject
premises confirmed that services had not been restored.
On November 6, 1987 the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review finding that services had not been restored,
denying the owner's request for rent restoration, and continuing
the rent reduction.
In its petition, filed December 11, 1987, the owner states in
substance that services have been restored.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
Although the owner submits evidence that some repairs occurred in
the past, this proof predates the September 30, 1987 report of
agency inspection which revealed continuing services diminutions.
Regarding the balance of the service diminutions, the owner
asserts that these items were repaired following the rent agency
inspection. It is unclear, however, whether the owner contends
that the alleged repairs were made before or after Rent
Administrator's order was issued. If it is the former, the
Commissioner notes that the owner failed to make this allegation
when the matter was pending before the Administrator, and the
order was therefore correct when issued. If it is the latter,
BL 610063 RO
then the Commissioner is of the opinion that the Administrator's
order was correct when issued and should be affirmed. The
Commissioner notes, however, that this order and opinion is
issued without prejudice to the owner's right to file the
appropriate application with the Division for a restoration of
rents based upon the restoration of services, if the facts so
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator's order was based
on the entire record, including the results of the on-site,
physical inspection conducted on September 30, 1987, and that the
Administrator was authorized to deny the owner's rent restoration
application upon determining that the owner had failed to
maintain services. The owner has not submitted any evidence to
establish that the required repairs were completed before the
rent restoration application was denied.
Although the owner contends that some repairs were effectuated
prior to the issuance of the Administrator's order, the
Commissioner notes that the owner submitted insufficient evidence
to substantiate the contention while this proceeding was pending
before the administrator and the results of the agency
BL 610063 RO
inspection, conducted September 30, 1987, revealed that several
items remained in a state of disrepair. Further, although the
owner asserts that several repairs were made after the issuance
of the order appealed herein, this assertion would not change the
Administrator's order which was correct when issued.