CA430066RT
                                  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.: CA30066RT
                                                  

          DIANE NIXON, TENANTS REPRESENTATIVE     RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S 
                                                  DOCKET NO.: AJ430078OR

                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
          On January 19, 1988 the above named petitioner-tenant 
          representative filed a Petition for Administrative Review against 
          an order of the Rent Administrator issued December 17, 1987 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as various apartments, 
          3 East 66 Street, New York, NY, wherein the Administrator granted 
          the owner's rent restoration application.

          The Commissioner has carefully reviewed all the evidence of record 
          and has carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues 
          raised on appeal.

          A review of the record reveals that on October 7, 1986, the owner 
          filed an application to restore rent that had been reduced in an 
          order issued on June 30, 1986 in Docket No. LCS000524B.  The rents 
          had been reduced building-wide based on a finding that there was no 
          superintendent on the premises and no address for one posted in the 
          public area, there was inadequate janitorial maintenance in that 
          the public areas required cleaning and there was an accumulation of 
          garbage in the basement, and there was roach and rodent infestation 
          in the basement.

          The application was served on the tenants who had been awarded a 
          rent reduction.  Several responded, stating in substance, that 
          there is still no resident full-time superintendent and the other 
          services have also not been restored.

          A DHCR inspector visited the building on March 12, 1987 and 
          reported that there was no resident superintendent but the name and 
          telephone number of a super residing at 4 East 66 Street was 
          posted, that the public areas were clean , that there was no 
          evidence of accumulation of garbage in the basement, and that there 
          was not evidence of infestation in the halls or basement.














          CA430053RT



          Based on the inspector's report, the order appealed herein was 
          issued granting the owner's rent restoration application.

          In the petition for administrative review, the authorized tenant 
          representative asserts that there is no "resident" superintendent 
          if he lives at a different address, that the public areas are not 
          clean, that garbage is left uncollected over the weekends, and that 
          there as been only a temporary improvement in the infestation 
          problem.  The tenants also question why the order was received only 
          from the landlord's attorney and why the effective date of the 
          restoration precedes the inspection date. 
                    
          In answer to the petition, the owner states that a superintendent 
          in residence at 4 East 66 Street satisfies the requirements of the 
          Housing Maintenance Code, that garbage is removed daily except on 
          weekends, that exterminator service has not been curtailed, and 
          that the premises are in good condition.

          After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
           
          A review of the evidence of record supports the Administrator's 
          determination that services had been restores.  The Rent 
          Administrator's order was properly based on the results of a 
          physical inspection which revealed that the name and address of a 
          superintendent in a nearby building was posted and that 
          superintendent and janitorial services were being adequately 
          provided.  The tenants have not established any basis for modifying 
          or revoking the Administrator's determination to grant the owner's 
          restoration application.

          In accordance with established policy the restoration for  
          stabilized tenants was made effective the first of the month 
          following service of the application on the tenants.  There is no 
          basis for a later effective date.

          THEREFORE in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is 

          ORDERED that this petition be and the same hereby is denied and the 
          Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed.
                            
          ISSUED:


                                                                             
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Deputy Commissioner