STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                             DOCKET NO.: CK110083RO,
                                                DF110116RO, DL110047RO
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                    Richard Albert,             DOCKET NO.: CD110006OR,
                                                CK120108OR, DF110126OR     



               On November 9, 1988, June 8, 1989, and December 1, 1989, the 
          above-named petitioner-owner timely filed petitions for 
          administrative review (PAR) of orders issued by the Rent 
          Administrator on October 4, 1988, May 17, 1989, and November 20, 
          1989 respectively, concerning the housing accommodation known as 
          93-49 222 Street, Apt. 1Y, Queens Village, N.Y. wherein the 
          Administrator determined the owner's various applications to 
          restore the rent which had been reduced under Docket Number 

               The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the 
          record and has carefully considered that portion of the record 
          relevant to the issued raised by the administrative appeal.

               This proceeding was commenced by the filing of an application 
          to restore rent dated April 4, 1988 (CD110006OR).  An inspection 
          conducted by a Division employee on August 31, 1988 determined that 
          the services had been partially restored resulting in a partial 
          restoration of the rent under the October 4, 1988 order, 
          specifically that the kitchen faucets had been repaired and that 
          the bathroom cold water faucet still needed repair.  A subsequent 
          application (CK120108OR) was denied by order issued May 17, 1989 
          which found, based on inspection conducted on April 12, 1989, that 
          the faucet still leaked.  Another application (DF110126OR) 
          thereafter was granted based on the results of another inspection 
          conducted November 8, 1989 and the remaining rent was restored 
          effective December 1, 1989.


               In the various PARs, the owner contends that faucet repair is 
          an ongoing service, that faucets were repaired on numerous 
          occasions, that in court appearances on December 17, 1987 and March 
          22, 1988, in which outstanding apartment repairs were enumerated, 
          no mention was made of the faucets needing repair; that the order 
          was not mailed to the owner's correct address; that owner had no 
          notice of the inspection; that federal law requires a hearing 
          before penalties such as these can be imposed; that the tenant has 
          signed multiple meritless complaints and has refused access for 
          repairs; that the tenant should be penalized for using the Division 
          to obtain unjustified rent reductions; and that the rent should be 
          restored as of the date of the original rent reduction.

               The tenant interposed answers requesting the denial of the 
          owner's petitions.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitions should 
          be denied.

               In order for a rent restoration application to be granted, it 
          must be established that the conditions cited in the rent reduction 
          order have been corrected.  In this case, the rent reduction order 
          described the services not being maintained as failure to make 
          repairs to kitchen and bathroom faucets.

               The only relevant inquiry in this proceeding is whether that 
          condition was corrected.  The owner's contention that repairs were 
          made on each visit to the apartment is controverted by the 
          inspection reports of August 31, 1988 and April 12, 1989, and 
          finally confirmed by the inspection conducted on November 8, 1989.
          The Commissioner finds that the Administrator's determinations were 
          properly based on the entire record including the results of on- 
          site physical inspection and that the orders hereunder review were 
          correctly issued and are affirmed.

               The mailing of the order to a former address is harmless error 
          as the owner received the order and filed a timely petition.  In 
          addition, there is no requirement in applicable law which requires 
          that a hearing be conducted before an order of this type can be 
          issued, or that an owner receive notice of DHCR inspections prior 
          to the issuance of the order where, as here, the inspection merely 
          substantiated the fact that the faucet was not repaired.  The owner 
          has provided no evidence to substantiate the other allegations in 
          the PARs.


               THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent Law and the Rent 
          and Eviction Regulations, it is,

               ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, 
          denied, and that the Administrator's orders be, and the same hereby 
          are affirmed.


                                                  Joseph A. D'Agosta         
                                                  Deputy Commissioner        



TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name