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

          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.:
                    Ruth Litman,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:


          On March 16, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          petition for administrative review of an order of modification or 
          revocation issued on February 25, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, 
          concerning the housing accommodation known as 95-08 Queens 
          Boulevard, Apt. 3E, Rego Park, N.Y., wherein the Administrator, 
          upon reconsideration of two conflicting orders issued under Docket 
          No. QS000312OR, determined that the rent should be restored 
          effective March 1, 1987.

          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.

          This proceeding was commenced by the filing of an application to 
          restore rent, dated December 2, 1985.  The application stated that 
          the painting work, required under a previous order reducing the 
          rent, could not be completed because the tenant refused access to 
          the apartment.  On February 10, 1987 the Administrator, believing 
          that the apartment was rent stabilized, issued an order restoring 
          the rent with an effective date of January 1, 1986.  Thereafter, on 
          June 15, 1987 under the same docket number, the Administrator 
          issued a conflicting order finding that the paint job had not been 
          completed and denied the rent restoration application.

          On January 26, 1988, the Division served notice on the parties that 
          the order issued under docket QS000312OR would be reconsidered to 
          determine, "...if the tenant has refused to provide access to the 
          apartment, thereby preventing the owner from restoring services."
          The tenant answered the notice on February 8, 1988, stating that 
          the issue therein had already been decided in Docket BC110088RT, 


          and that there should be no further inquiry regarding the painting 
          of her apartment, or the rent restoration, as the rent had been set 
          at a harassment hearing conducted on December 1, 1987.  The tenant 
          further commented that the various filings made by the owner 
          constitute harassment.

          The Administrator found, on reconsideration, that the evidence of 
          record did not support the June 15, 1987 order denying the owner a 
          restoration of rent, and that the February 10, 1987 order granting 
          a restoration of rent should be affirmed but modified to provide 
          for an effective date of March 1, 1987, the first day of the month 
          following the issuance of the order.

          In her PAR, the tenant contends in substance that she received no 
          notice advising of the basis for the reopening below, that she was 
          not afforded an opportunity to reply, that the Rent Administrator 
          has exceeded his authority in redetermining an issue, that she has 
          never denied access to the apartment, and that once the rent was 
          reduced for failure to properly paint, the owner was not entitled 
          to a restoration until the next painting cycle three years later.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be 

          Sections 2207.2 and 2207.3 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations 
          authorize a Rent Administrator to institute a proceeding on his own 
          initiative upon notice to the affected parties setting forth the 
          proposed action.  The Administrator sent such notice which was 
          received and answered by the tenant.

          The tenant's answer failed to address the issue of access.  It was 
          therefore proper for the Administrator to affirm the prior rent 
          restoration order on the basis of the owner's statements in his 
          application that the tenant denied access to correct or complete 
          the painting.  It was likewise proper for the administrator to 
          correct the effective date of the order in accordance with the law 
          and regulations applicable to rent controlled apartments.  Lastly, 
          the tenant is incorrect in her belief that the owner was not 
          entitled to a restoration until the next painting cycle.  There is 
          no authority in the applicable rent laws for this notion.

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

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


          that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 


                                             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