STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: CE110122RO
(Refile of CE110093RT)
J.R.D. MANAGEMENT and
OLGUIE TORO RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BF110003OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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
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,
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