BJ130172RO
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
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: BJ130172RO
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BD110003OR
Richard Albert,
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 20, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
September 24, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodation known as 93-41 222 Street Apt. 2A, Queens
Village, NY wherein the Administrator determined that the
conditions which resulted in the rent reduction order in Docket
Number AD110075S had not been corrected and denied the owner's
application for a rent restoration.
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.
This proceeding was commenced by the finding of an application
to restore rent dated March 28, 1987. An inspection conducted by
a Division employee on August 3, 1987 indicated mice droppings and
signs of roach infestation resulting in the September 24, 1987
order.
In his PAR, the owner contends that extermination services are
provided on a monthly basis; that at a hearing held in connection
with another docket the agency determined that there was in fact
monthly extermination service and the finding in this case is
therefore inconsistent with said determination; that the
complaining tenant has never requested extermination and therefore
cannot be heard to complain. The owner further contends that the
inspection process is flawed because only the tenant and not the
owner is notified.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
be denied.
BJ130172RO
The Administrator's order says that there is evidence of roach
infestation. There has been no finding that extermination is not
being provided or is not made available to tenants desirous of the
service. That this agency, in another docket, found that
extermination is provided monthly, does not contradict the
inspection results in this case. The Commissioner notes that
extermination, if performed, has been ineffective and such was
evident at the time of inspection. In addition, there is no
requirement in the law or code that requires that the Division
allow the owner or his representative to accompany its inspectors
during their inspections.
The Commissioner notes that the owner's rent restoration
application, Docket Number CG110108OR, was granted effective
September 1, 1988.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is,
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Administrator's order be affirmed.
ISSUED:
___________________
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|
