CH110219RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
----------------------------------x
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
CH110219RO
HEN YAM LEE CORP.,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER CB110205OR
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 31, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a peti-
tion for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on August
8, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accomo-
dation known as 36-07 Steinway Street, Long Island City, New York,
Apartment 3-C, wherein the Administrator determined that the
conditions which were the subject of the Rent Administrator's rent
reduction order, issued under Docket No. ZBF110677S on January 29,
1988, were not fully corrected.
The Commissioner has reviewed all 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 denied
the owner's application for a restoration of rent.
On February 25, 1988, the owner filed the subject application for
rent restoration, alleging that the conditions that were the
subject of the Rent Administrator's rent reduction order, issued on
January 29, 1988, were fully restored.
The tenant filed an answer to the owner's application alleging that
the owner failed to restore the services in question.
A Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspection
conducted on June 23, 1988, revealed that:
1. Windows in the kitchen, bedroom and living
room have defective locks and are hard to
operate.
CH110219RO
2. Bathroom light fixtures has exposed electrical
wiring.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
all windows are operational, that there is no exposed electrical
wire on the bathroom florescent fixture and that there were
duplicate service complaints filed by the tenant.
The petition was served on the tenant on October 14, 1988 and on
October 18, 1988, the tenant filed an answer to the petition
stating that the DHCR's inspection results should prevail over the
unproven allegations of the owner and that the windows are still
unoperational and the bathroom florescent fixture still has an
exposed electrical wire.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The subject application for rent restoration was filed by the
owner, essentially alleging that all windows in the apartment were
refitted; that all window locks were adjusted; that windows were
caulked; that exposed electrical wires were installed by the tenant
and that where necessary all wall areas were repainted and
plastered.
The DHCR inspection confirmed that the apartment windows were
defective and that the bathroom light fixture had exposed elec-
trical wiring, as the tenant had consistently alleged.
The owner's petition failed to establish that restoration of the
rent is warranted.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly
based his determination on the entire record, including the results
of the on-site inspection conducted on June 23, 1988, and that the
Administrator properly denied the owner's application to restore
the rent upon determining that the owner had failed to fully
restore services.
The Division's records do not reveal any duplication in proceed-
ings.
Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately reapply for
a rent restoration.
CH110219RO
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabili-
zation Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
