STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:              
                BARBARA RUTH THACKSTON,        
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                     PREMISES     BC410060OR

          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.

          BI 230194-RO

          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
                                                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