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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:             
                     LINDA MOUTON,                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:

                                TO RENT ADMINISTRATOR

          On January 14, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          December 15, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the 
          housing accommodation known as Apartment 77G121, 255-15 74th 
          Avenue, Glen Oaks, New York, wherein the Administrator determined 
          that the owner had restored all services for which a rent reduction 
          order had previously been ordered and restored the rent.  The rent 
          had been reduced by the former Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB) 
          for several conditions listed by the tenant in a complaint to which 
          the owner did not respond (Docket No. 78055-P).

          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 record indicates that the owner filed two rent restoration 
          applications seeking restoration of the same rent reduction.  In 
          the first one filed on March 6, 1987 (BC110006OR) the owner stated 
          that the leak had been corrected but the tenant refused to provide 
          management access for painting and plastering.  That application 
          was served on the tenant on March 30, 1987 and in an answer dated 
          April 8, 1987, she stated that the leak has not been fixed but she 
          is agreeing to allow the painting and plastering to be done on 
          April 14 and 17 anyway.


          The Division's inspector visited the apartment on August 11, 1987 
          and reported that several necessary repairs had not been completed.

          The Rent Administrator issued an order on October 27, 1987 denying 
          the owner's application.  The owner did not appeal that 

          The second application (BF110022OR) was filed on June 5, 1987 and 
          stated that all repair work had been completed according to an 
          inspection on May 21, 1987 and that the tenant has been directed by 
          the Compliance Bureau to provide a date for painting the repaired 

          In an answer dated August 27, 1987, he tenant asserted that there 
          was an inspection by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal 
          (DHCR) on August 11, 1987, at which time the tenant showed the 
          inspector the incomplete or unworkmanlike repairs.  The tenant 
          argued that the rent should not restored until all conditions are 
          corrected properly and she should not have to be subjected to 
          repeated inadequate repair attempts.

          The inspector attempted to visit the tenant's apartment on October 
          26 and 28, 1987, in conjunction with the second application but the 
          tenant failed to keep the two appointments.

          The Rent Administrator issued the order appealed herein on December 
          30, 1987, restoring the rent effective September 1, 987.

          On appeal, the tenant asserts that the owner's rent restoration 
          application was denied after an inspection on August 11, 1987, 
          revealed that repairs had not been made after access for painting 
          and repairs had been given on June 19, 1987.  The tenant claims 
          that since no attempts were made to make any repairs after June 
          1987, no further inspections by DHCR after August 11, were 

          The petition was served on the owner on February 16, 1988.

          After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the Commis- 
          sioner is of the opinion that the tenant's petition should be 
          granted and the order restoring rent should be revoked.

          The order appealed herein was based on the tenant's failure to keep 
          appointments with the DHCR inspector.  The appointments, however, 
          were scheduled in October 1987 when the first restoration 
          proceeding was still pending for which the tenant had admitted the 
          inspector.  The determination that was issued in that proceeding 
          rendered the second proceeding moot.


          However, given the prejudice to the owner that may result by the 
          revocation of the rent restoration, the Commissioner deems it 
          appropriate to remand this proceeding to the Rent Administrator to 
          determine if repairs have been completed and to order resotration 
          of rent effective as of the date the evidence of record establishes 
          the work was done.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Stabilization Law and 
          Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted, 
          that the rent restoration order be, and the same hereby is, 
          revoked, and the proceeding be, and the same hereby is, remanded to 
          the Rent Administrator for further processing in accordance with 
          this Order and Opinion.


                                                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