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.:
TOPOROVSKY & SONS REALTY CORP., DOCKET NO.:
3510 Bainbridge Ave.
PETITIONER Apt. 6-D, Bronx, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on January 27, 1988 concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
number wherein the Administrator ordered a rent reduction based on
a finding of a decrease in services.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order was
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on July 28, 1987 by a rent-controlled
tenant who requested a rent reduction because the owner failed to
replace her storm windows and screens.
On August 18, 1987, the Division sent the owner a copy of the
In an answer filed on August 28, 1987, the owner stated that the
tenant's apartment had already been scheduled for installation of
A physical inspection of the apartment was conducted on December 1,
1987 by a Division staff member who reported that new windows were
installed but screens were missing in the bedroom (2 screens),
living room (2), kitchen (1) and bathroom (1).
Based on said inspection, the Administrator directed on January 27,
1988 the restoration of services and reduced the maximum legal rent
by $6.00 per month, effective on the first rent payment day fol-
lowing the issuance of the order.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contended in
substance that repairs had been performed, and submitted a copy of
a work order dated January 27, 1988 wherein the tenant had
acknowledged with her signature that repairs were made to her
On March 30, 1988, the Division mailed the tenant a copy of the
In an answer filed on April 7, 1988, the tenant admitted that the
screens were finally installed.
The order appealed from was based upon a staff inspector's report
which found on December 1, 1987 defective conditions within the
apartment. The determination was in all respects proper and is
However, the owner's petition has shown that repairs had been
completed on January 27, 1988. The tenant acknowledges these
repairs by her signature on the work order and by so admitting in
her answer to the owner's petition. Accordingly, the maximum legal
rent is restored effective February 1, 1988, the first rent payment
day following completion of repairs.
The owner's application CB620236OR filed on February 16, 1988 is
hereby terminated in accordance with this Order and Opinion.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed. However, the maximum legal rent is restored effective
February 1, 1988 in accordance with this Order and Opinion.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA