STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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
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