BL120320RO




                               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.: BL120320RO
                                              :                        
                    VIVIAN TURRIAGO,          :  DRO DOCKET NO.:
                                              :              AH120097OR
                                              :                             
                                              :
                                PETITIONER    :     
          ------------------------------------X


             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               The above-named owner-petitioner timely refiled a Petition for 
          Administrative Review (PAR) of an order issued on September 28, 
          1987 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, 
          NY, concerning the rent controlled housing accommodation known as 
          42-14 Union Street, Apt. 2G, Flushing, NY, wherein the Adminis- 
          trator issued an order restoring rent.
               
               The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the 
          record and has carefully considered that portion of the record 
          relevant to the issues raised by the administrative appeal.

               This proceeding was commenced on August 27, 1986 by the 
          owner's filing of an application to restore the rent for the 
          subject apartment, alleging that the decrease in services upon 
          which an April 29, 1986 order of rent reduction was based (ie, 
          inadequate heat and hot water service) had been restored.

               On September 18, 1986, the tenant filed an answer stating that 
          the subject service had not been restored.  

               A Division inspector sent the tenant notices of inspection 
          appointments on two occasions.  The first appointment was scheduled 
          for February 23, 1987, the second was scheduled for March 2, 1987.  
          The tenant failed to keep both appointments.














          BL120320RO



               In the order issued on September 28, 1987, the Administrator 
          granted the owner's application in whole, restoring the rent in the 
          amount of 7 1/2% per month.  The order was based on the tenant's 
          failure to keep the scheduled inspection appointments.

               In the PAR, the owner submits an April 23, 1986 Housing Court 
          Decision [DHPD v. Turriago, et al., Qns. Cty (Pt. 18C) Index No. 
          HP239/86, J. George] and asserts that there was a finding of two 
          days of inadequate heat and hot water because of repairs, that 
          there was no finding of penalties against the landlord, and that 
          the tenant's initial services complaint with the DHCR, filed April 
          8, 1986, was based on the same subject matter as that of the 
          Housing Court proceeding.  The owner claims the Administrator's 
          order is arbitrary and capricious because the portion of the order 
          referencing the effective date of the restoration was left blank.  
          The owner argues that the order should be modified to show an 
          effective date of May 6, 1986--the date reflected on the rent 
          restoration application--because 1) the submitted court decision 
          attested to the subject restoration as of May 6, 1986, and 2) an 
          inspector was not sent out in May, 1986 to investigate heat and hot 
          water, but instead, it took the Administrator over sixteen months 
          to act upon the matter, which time delay should not inure to the 
          tenant's benefit.

               The tenant did not file an answer to the PAR.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition 
          should be denied.

               Review of the Housing Court decision shows that there was a 
          finding of two days of inadequate heat and hot water, which 
          confirmed the propriety of the Administrator's initial (April 29, 
          1986) order reducing the tenant's rent.  While the decision stated 
          that no finding would be made for penalties due to an illegal 
          [heating] device, it nonetheless specifically imposed a $1,000.00 
          fine against the owner--$250 each day for heat and $250 each day 
          for hot water.  Furthermore, the decision made no specific finding 
          that the subject service decreases were attributable to 'repairs.' 

               The claim that the Housing Court decision attested to the 
          restoration of heat and hot water service as of May 6, 1986 is 
          unfounded.  The decision made no specific finding that heat and hot 
          water service had been restored.  Moreover, the decision 
          specifically orders the respondent to maintain the heating device 
          in accordance with law to the extent it exists.  











          BL120320RO

               The Administrator's failure to indicate an effective date in 
          the order did not render it defective. Section 2202.2 of the Rent 
          and Eviction Regulations prohibits the effectuation of a rental 
          adjustment prior to the date on which an order is issued.  As such, 
          the rent restoration in the instant order took effect, by law, on 
          the first rent payment date following the issuance date of the 
          order, effective October 1, 1987.  Therefore, the owner's request 
          that the rent restoration date be modified to take effect 
          retroactively to May 6, 1986 cannot be granted.  

               The owner's protests about the lengthy processing period and 
          the Division's failure to send an inspector to the premises in May, 
          1986  do not furnish a basis for reversal or modification of the 
          order.    

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the NYC Rent and Eviction 
          Regulations, it is

               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied 
          and 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