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.:
LINDA MOUTON, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW,
REVOKING RENT RESTORATION ORDER AND REMANDING PROCEEDING
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