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.:
BARBARA RUTH THACKSTON,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 28, 1987, the above-named petitioner-tenant timely
refiled a petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order
issued on October 6, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning
the housing accommodation known as 104 East 31st Street, New York,
New York, Apartment 2-C, wherein the Administrator determined that
the owner's application for a restoration of rent should be granted
in whole based on an inspection held on July 7, 1987 which showed
that the owner was maintaining the lobby camera, the washing
machines in the laundry room, that exterminator services were being
provided on a weekly basis, that a resident superintendent was
available in apartment 5-B and that his name was prominently
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.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly granted
the owner's application for a restoration of rent.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant essentially contradicted the
inspector's findings and further alleged that a computer violation
printout, dated November 23, 1987, from the New York City
Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) for the
subject building is corroborative proof that the owner did not
fully restore services. The tenant also objects to an effective
date for restoration that pre-dates the inspection.
The petition was served on the owner on February 18, 1988. The
owner answered the petition substantially alleging that the tenant
of Apartment 2-C is the only tenant of six disputing the Rent
Administrator's determination to grant restoration of the rent and
further that the inspector's findings should be conclusive.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The owner, on proof of restoration of those services which were the
subject of the Rent Administrator's reduction order is, by law,
entitled to apply for an order of rent restoration.
The record clearly shows that the Rent Administrator in granting
the owner's restoration application, based his findings on the
results of an inspection held by the Division of Housing and
Community Renewal, on July 7, 1987, which revealed that the
services of the lobby camera, washing machines in the laundry room,
exterminating, and a resident superintendent were being provided.
The HPD violations, for the subject building, on which the tenant
relies, do not warrant revocation of the order. Even if there are
similar HPD violations that were the basis for a DHCR rent reduc-
tion, they would not warrant revocation of the rent restoration
order in this proceeding which was determined on the basis of a
contemporaneous agency inspection which clearly revealed that the
conditions which were the subject of the Rent Administrator's
reduction order were being maintained as of the date of the
The Commissioner deems it appropriate to rely on the results of the
Division's inspection and finds that the petitioner failed to
adduce convincing evidence that the inspector's findings were
erroneous in any way.
It is also noted that the rent restoration was correctly made
effective the first of the month following service of the owner's
application on the tenant in that the inspection established the
validity of the owner's appliction.
This order is issued without prejudice to the tenant's continuing
right to file an appropriate application for a rent reduction, if
the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabili-
zation Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and the
same hereby is, denied, and the order of the Rent Administrator be,
and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA