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

          APPEAL OF                                  DOCKET NO.: CE110122RO
                                                     (Refile of CE110093RT)
                  J.R.D. MANAGEMENT and
                       OLGUIE TORO                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                     DOCKET NO.: BF110003OR


          On May 6, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review of an order issued on April 7, 1988, by 
          the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodation known 
          as 155-01 90th Avenue, Apt. #2B, Jamaica, New York, wherein the 
          Administrator granted the owner's rent restoration application.

          On July 18, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant timely refiled 
          a petition for administrative review of the same order.

          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 reveals that the owner filed an application to restore 
          rent on June 4, 1987 in which it was asserted that the tenant had 
          unreasonably refused to permit the owner to restore services for 
          which a rent reduction order had been issued on May 13, 1987 in 
          Docket No. AJ110170S.  The rent had been reduced because of mice 
          and rodent infestation and the absence of screens.

          In answer to the application, the tenant denied that she has 
          refused access.

          A physical inspection of the apartment on October 22, 1987 revealed 
          evidence of mice and roach infestation throughout the apartment and 
          one missing screen in the bedroom.


          A second inspection was scheduled for January 20, 1988 at which 
          both the tenant and owner or his repair person were directed to 
          appear.  The inspector reported that an agreement was made between 
          the parties that the windows would be repaired on January 29, 1988.

          On February 24, 1988, the tenant was asked if the repairs had been 
          done.  The tenant responded, indicating that the repairs had been 
          done but adding a statement that the mice infestation persists 
          despite service by the exterminator, and that the windows had been 
          repaired with a patch-up job.

          Based on the tenant's statement that repairs have been completed, 
          the Rent Administrator granted the owner's application and ordered  
          rent restoration, effective September 1, 1987.  The order contained 
          a directive to the owner to cure the persistent mice infestation 

          The owner, in its petition for administrative review, asserts that 
          the order does not grant the proper restoration because there was 
          another rent reduction issued on March 21, 1986 for the same item 
          for which the owner had also filed a restoration application.  The 
          owner also states that screens are not a required service and that 
          the tenant has not provided access.  

          The owner's petition was served on the tenant on July 7, 1988.  The 
          tenant answered, denying the owner's allegations.

          The tenant, in her petition, seeks a re-evaluation of the rent 
          restoration order because the apartment is still infested with 
          rodents and roaches despite visits by the exterminator.

          After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that both petitions should be 

          With regard to the owner's petition, the parties are advised that 
          the instant proceeding concerned only the restoration of  rent that 
          had been reduced in Docket No. AJ110170S.  The owner is correct 
          that another rent reduction was ordered in Docket No. QS003938S on 
          March 21, 1986 for mice infestation which was remanded by the 
          Commissioner in an order issued in August 31, 1987.  Pursuant to 
          the remand, the Rent Administrator issued another order on March 7, 
          1989 (Docket No. BI110021RP) affirming the rent reduction but 
          restoring the rent in whole effective September 1, 1987.  Neither 
          party appealed that order which is now a final determination and 
          effectively resolves the issues raised in the instant petition.

          With regard to the tenant's petition, a review of the record 


          reveals that the Administrator properly relied on the tenant's 
          statement that repairs had been done and properly directed the 
          owner to address the infestation condition.  Having consented to 
          restoration of rent, the tenant's remedy is to seek compliance with 
          the directive to the owner contained in the order or to file a new 
          complaint.  The rent restoration, however, was proper and is 

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is

          ORDERED, that these petitions be and the same hereby are denied and 
          the Rent 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