CC210216RT;  CC410365RO                    
                                    STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433





          ----------------------------------x     
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:              
CC210216RT;             
           JULIA ROYAL,                           CC410365RO
                            Petitioner Tenant
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
           CHARLES M. MC MICKENS,                 DOCKET NOS.:
                                                  BG210178OR/
                            Petitioner Owner      KC000169HH
          ----------------------------------x



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for administrative 
          review (PAR) of an order issued February 17, 1988, concerning the 
          housing accommodations known as 292 Carlton Avenue, Basement, 
          Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator restored the 
          tenant's rent previously reduced per Docket No. KC000169HH.

          The above-named owner also filed a timely petition for administra- 
          tive review of the Rent Administrator's order.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues raised by the petition.

          The owner commenced these proceedings by filing an application to 
          restore rent previously reduced by 7% of the then maximum legal 
          collectible rent on July 25, 1985 per Docket No. KC000169HH for 
          failure to provide heat and hot water services.

          The tenant opposed the owner's application asserting that, in fact, 
          the owner was not providing adequate heat and hot water on a 
          consistent basis.  In support, the tenant submitted notices of 
          violations from the City Department of Housing Preservation and 
          Development (HPD) dated October 28, 1987 and November 2, 1987 
          citing inadequate heat and hot water services for the subject 
          apartment.













          CC210216RT;  CC410365RO                    




          Thereafter, on written notice to the tenant, inspections were 
          attempted by a DHCR inspector on December 14 and December 23, 1987.  
          The inspector reported that repeated ringing and knocking brought 
          no response from the tenant.

          The Rent Administrator issued an order on February 17, 1988 
          granting the owner's rent restoration application based on the 
          tenant's failure to keep two scheduled inspection appointments.

          In the petition for administrative review, the tenant urges the 
          Commissioner to reverse the Rent Administrator's order.  The tenant 
          reiterates the arguments below that the application was defective 
          because a copy of the rent reduction order was not included with   
          the application, and that the owner was harassing the tenant.  

          The tenant also contends that the DHCR lacks authority to grant a 
          rent restoration without the tenant's voluntary written agreement 
          to an adjustment of the rent, as allegedly provided in Section 
          2202.4 of the City Rent and Eviction Regulations.

          The tenant also submits copies of additional City HPD notices of 
          violations for inadequate heat and hot water, dated January 28, 
          1988.

          The owner's petition for administrative review requests the 
          Commissioner to amend the rent restoration order to reflect that 
          the tenant's pre-reduction legal rent controlled rent was $89.16 
          per month.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that the tenant's and owner's petitions should be denied.

          In order to render a determination in rent restoration proceedings, 
          the Rent Administrator must ascertain whether the conditions that 
          gave rise to the rent reduction have been corrected.  Notwith- 
          standing the tenant's evidence below of October and November 1987 
          HPD notices of violations, the tenant did not subsequently provide 
          the DHCR inspector access to the apartment in December 1987 to 
          ascertain the then current heat and hot water conditions.  Since 
          the tenant did not comply with her obligation to cooperate with the 
          Rent Administrator, it would have been improper to continue to 
          penalize the owner.













          CC210216RT;  CC410365RO                    


          The tenant's reliance on Section 2202.4 of the City Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations is misplaced.  The owner correctly points out 
          that Section 2202.4 refers to voluntary and mutually agreeable 
          change of service to which the tenant and the owner both consent.  
          The underlying rent reduction order was predicated on the fact that 
          the owner had failed to maintain base date essential services the 
          owner was already obligated to provide and maintain.  The rent 
          restoration application, based on the assertion that the owner 
          restored heat and hot water services, does not constitute a change 
          in essential services.

          The Commissioner also notes that the owner did provide a copy of 
          the reduction order to the Rent Administrator upon further request.  
          Owners are requested to submit a copy of the rent reduction order 
          with the rent restoration application to facilitate processing.  
          The fact that it may not have been served on the tenant did not 
          raise any issue of due process, warranting reconsideration of the 
          Rent Administrator's order.

          The rent restoration proceedings are limited to a determination 
          based on evidence below whether the owner has corrected conditions 
          previously found to have been defective.  Issues raised in 
          harassment and other proceedings are not matters for disposition by 
          the Rent Administrator responsible for tenant services, although  
          some matters may have overlapped with the services restoration 
          questions herein.  Concerning the tenant's allegation, below and on 
          appeal, of harassment, DHCR records indicate the DHCR Enforcement 
          Bureau, after review and evaluation of the tenant's harassment 
          complaint (Docket No. 17,438HL) advised the tenant that no Enforce- 
          ment Bureau action was warranted because the tenant's complaints 
          did not constitute violations of the harassment sections of the 
          rent regulatory laws.

          Copies of additional heat and hot water violations submitted by the 
          tenant for the first time on appeal, as well as evidence submitted 
          by the owner on appeal that the tenant may have denied the owner 
          and his agents access to effect repairs, cannot be considered, 
          since they are beyond the scope of review, which is limited to a 
          review of the evidence before the Administrator.











          Moreover, the tenant's contention as to defective conditions not 












          CC210216RT;  CC410365RO                    

          cited in the rent reduction order are not properly raised in the 
          rent restoration proceeding or the administrative review proceed- 
          ings thereof.  If they were the proper subject of a challenge to 
          the rent reduction order, the time period for challenging the rent 
          reduction order has passed.

          Concerning the owner's petition, the Commissioner notes that the 
          Rent Administrator's rent restoration order properly set forth that 
          "The Maximum/Legal Regulated Rent was restored in the amount of [$] 
          7% . . . ", i.e., the rent reduction granted.  Moreover, rent 
          restoration proceedings are not the proper vehicle to ascertain 
          and/or establish the maximum legal regulated rent of the subject 
          premises.  The Commissioner notes the existence of a number of DHCR 
          proceedings, both closed and pending, between the parties con- 
          cerning the subject premises, that may affect or have substantial 
          impact on the monthly rent.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Law and Regula- 
          tions for New York City, it is

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied, 
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed.


          ISSUED:






                                                                           
                                                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