STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 25, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
October 18, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 1037 51st Street, Brooklyn, N.Y., Apt. D-3,
wherein the Administrator determined that the owner should be
granted restoration of the rent effective June 1, 1988, based on a
finding that certain services had been restored.
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 issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly
restored the rent of the subject apartment, effective June 1, 1988.
The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an Application For
Rent Restoration on March 15, 1988, stating that services for which
a rent reduction order had been issued by the Administrator on July
6, 1987, under Docket No. AL210372S had been restored.
A DHCR inspection conducted on September 14, 1988, revealed that
all repairs which were the subject of the reduction order had been
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part,
that the effective date of the rent restoration order should be
January 1, 1988, rather than June 1, 1988, because it had filed the
rent restoration application on January 1, 1988.
The petition was served on the tenant on December 5, 1988, and on
December 12, 1988, the tenant filed an answer to the petition
stating that the owner completed the repair work at the end of
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
With regard to the issue of the effective date of rent restoration
ordered by the Administrator, the Commissioner notes that it is the
policy of the DHCR to order rent restoration for rent stabilized
tenants effective the first rent payment date following service of
the application on the tenants.
A review of the record shows clearly that the application for rent
restoration was mailed to the DHCR, on March 15, 1988, and was
served on the tenant on May 4, 1988.
The Commissioner finds, therefore, that the Rent Administrator's
determination that the rent should be restored, effective June 1,
1988, was correct and proper.
Accordingly, the order here under review is affirmed.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization 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,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA