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

          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.:
                    Ralph Glasser,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:


          On March 25, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on February 
          28, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 1958 50th Street, Apt. 2-F, Brooklyn, N.Y., 
          wherein the Administrator granted the owner's application to 
          restore rent that had been reduced on March 8, 1982, under Docket 
          No. 2T6579S7/98.  Rent restoration of $93.00 per month was ordered.

          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 rent restoration application.

          On June 17, 1986, the owner filed an application to restore the 
          rent certifying that all repairs and services which were the 
          subject of the March 8, 1982, rent reduction order were restored.

          The tenant filed an answer to the complaint alleging that the 
          repair work was either unfinished or completed in an unworkmanlike 

          A DHCR inspection conducted on January 22, 1988, revealed that the 
          following services were restored:


               1.   Adequate heat and hot water at time of inspection.

               2.   Defective mailboxes repaired.

               3.   Adequate lighting in public areas.

               Landlord was directed to replace one mailbox lock.

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          he is living in deplorable conditions because the owner is un- 
          willing to make necessary repairs; that repairs which were actually 
          made were made in an unworkmanlike manner and that the owner has 
          knowingly violated various sections of other laws, such as the 
          Administrative Code, the Health Code and that the New York City 
          Department of Housing Preservation and Development Agency (HPD) had 
          issued sundry outstanding violations against the premises.

          The petition was served on the owner on May 11, 1988, and on 
          May 18, 1988, the owner filed an answer to the petition stating 
          that contrary to the tenant's allegations all work was performed in 
          a workmanlike manner and according to legal requirements and this 
          was confirmed by the DHCR's inspection.

          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 January 22, 1988, which revealed that the 
          owner was providing heat, hot water, mailbox and public area 
          lighting services.

          The HPD and other 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 reduction, 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 inspection.
          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.


          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.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          the Administrator's order 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