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.: CE210054RO
125 Eastern Associates c/o RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
Phillip L. Billet, DOCKET NO.: BI210028OR
PETITIONER PREMISES: 125 Eastern Parkway
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed timely petitions for administrative
review of orders issued on May 9, 1988 (BI210028OR) and May 10, 1989
(CI210081OR) concerning the housing accommodations relating to the
above-described docket number.
These proceedings are consolidated because they involve common
issues of law and fact.
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 this administrative appeal.
Based on alleged restoration of services, the owner filed on
September 1, 1987 an application for rent restoration (BI210028OR).
In an answer filed on March 3, 1988, the tenant asserted that the
defective conditions continue to exist.
On March 15, 1988, a physical inspection of the subject apartment
was conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported that the kitchen
window is drafty, loose and needs refitting; that the apartment is
roach-infested; and that there is inadequate water pressure in the
bathroom to flush the toilet.
By an order dated May 9, 1988, the Administrator denied the
Another application (CI210081OR) was filed by the owner on September
On October 27, 1988, DHCR mailed a copy of the application to the
CE210054RO et al.
A physical inspection of the subject apartment on April 18, 1989 was
conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported, in relevant part,
that the sashes of the kitchen windows are loose in its frames; the
kitchen and the bedroom are infested by roaches; and there is now
adequate water pressure.
By an order dated May 10, 1989, the Administrator recognized that
there is now adequate water pressure, and denied the application
(CI210081OR) based on the continued existence of the remaining
In the petitions for administrative review, the owner contends that
the repairs to windows were completed; and there is monthly
extermination, with special servicing upon tenant's request.
Attached to the petition are copies of proposals and contracts.
Copies of the petitions were mailed to the tenant on June 28, 1988
and September 14, 1989.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petitions should be denied.
The petitions do not establish any basis for modifying or revoking
the Administrator's orders which determined that the kitchen window
sashes are loose and allow air seepage and that there is roach
infestation in the bedroom and the kitchen. The alleged copies of
contracts and proposals fail to rebut the determination based on
March 15, 1988 and April 18, 1989 physical inspections which
confirmed the continued existence of these defective conditions,
warranting a denial of the applications. Accordingly, the
determinations were correct in all respects and are hereby
The Commissioner notes that another owner's rent restoration
application (FI210035OR) was denied on May 15, 1992.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied,
and that the Administrator's orders be, and the same hereby are,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA