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.: CJ110055RO
KINGSWOOD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
c/o KUCKER KRAUS & BRUH DOCKET NO.: CC110081OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 13, 1988 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review against an order issued on
September 13, 1988 by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing
accommodation known as Apt. #24A 12-1, 255-17 75th Avenue, Glen
Oaks, New York wherein the Administrator denied the owner's rent
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 indicates that on March 7, 1988, the owner filed an
application to restore rent in which it was stated that all
services for which a rent reduction order was issued on October 31,
1984 under Docket Number 79808-P had been restored. The rent had
been reduced because of cracked and broken tiles around the bathtub
area and the boiler made a loud humming noise in the tenant's
bedroom. The owner submitted with the application copies of
various service orders, but none establish that the necessary
repairs were done.
In response to the application, the tenant stated that the tiles in
the bathroom are still defective and the boiler still makes
A physical inspection by a Division Employee on August 10, 1988
revealed that the bathroom floor tiles were cracked and broken and
that the boiler was shut down for the summer.
Based on the inspection, the owner's application was denied.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner, through
counsel, alleges that the owner should not be penalized because
the inspection took place on a day when the boiler was not required
to be on. With regard to the tiles, the petition asserts that the
condition found by the inspector in the rent restoration
proceedings of "bathroom tiles on floor are cracked and broken" is
a different condition than in the rent reduction proceeding which
referred to "tiles around bathtub area are cracked and broken".
In answer to the petition, the tenant states that the tiles found
to be defective are the same in both inspections and that the
boiler had not been repaired and a proper inspection should take
place on a day when the boiler is operating to verify this.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The owner did not establish in its application that any repairs to
correct the conditions cited in the rent reduction order had been
done. The tenant opposed the application and the inspection
confirmed that repairs had not been done.
The reference to cracked and broken tiles in the bathroom in both
proceedings is sufficiently similar to describe the same condition.
In the absence of evidence of any tile repair work in the bathroom,
the owner cannot claim that the original condition was fixed and a
new condition was detected in the restoration proceeding.
As for the boiler, the inspection was not dispositive of whether
repairs had been done. Since rent restoration is not warranted
unless all required services have been restored, the owner's
application was properly denied. The owner may file a new
application if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is denied and
the Rent Administrator's be and the same hereby is affirmed.
JOSEPH D. A'GOSTA