CD110192RO/CG120084RT
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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.: CD110192RO
CG120084RT
ZARA REALTY HOLDING CORP.
DENISE BELLINI RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: BJ120185OR
PETITIONERS
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above referenced administrative appeals have been
consolidated as both contain common issues of law and fact.
The above named petitioner-owner and petitioner-tenant filed
Petitions for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued June 20, 1988. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt. 3C located at 89-32 138th Street,
Jamaica, N.Y. The Administrator granted the owner's rent
restoration application.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding on October 27, 1987 by
filing a rent restoration application wherein it alleged that it
had restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing
Docket No. BC110029S had been issued. The Commissioner notes that
the Administrator had reduced the tenant's rent based on findings
of rodent and vermin infestation, kitchen floor not repaired in
workmanlike manner, defective bathtub faucets, discolored and
broken bathroom tiles, no electrical outlet in bathroom, hole in
bedroom door, living room electrical outlets in need of repair,
holes in hallway walls around intercom system, and walls and
ceilings throughout apartment peeling paint and plaster. The
Commissioner further notes that the owner filed an administrative
appeal of the rent reduction order (Docket No. BJ130276RO). The
Commissioner granted this appeal in part and remanded the
proceeding to the Administrator for further processing. In Docket
No. FH110043RP, the Administrator modified the original rent
reduction order to reflect the fact that the rent was restored by
the order here under review effective January 1, 1988.
CD110192RO/CG120084RT
The tenant was served with a copy of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The tenant filed a response on
stated that all services were restored except for certain
conditions in the bathroom and the fact that there were waterbugs
in the apartment.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on May 10, 1988 and
revealed the owner had restored services except for the fact that
the kitchen floor and bathroom ceiling were in need of further
repairs.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on June
20, 1988 and granted the application. The rent was ordered
restored effective January 1, 1988. The Administrator also
directed the owner to repair the kitchen floor and bathroom
ceiling.
On appeal the owner states that the tenant had withdrawn the
rent reduction complaint prior to the issuance of the rent
reduction order and also states that it was entitled to notice of
the inspection in the rent reduction proceeding and a copy of the
inspector's report. The petition was served on the tenant on June
16, 1988.
The tenant filed a response on June 27, 1988 and stated, in
sum, that the owner's petition was without merit and should be
denied.
The tenant's appeal states that rent restoration should not
have been granted effective January 1, 1988 but, instead, should
have been granted effective May 10, 1988 when repairs were
completed. The petition was served on the owner on August 17,
1988.
The owner filed a response on August 20, 1988 and stated, in
sum, that the order here under review was correctly issued, that
the tenant's petition was without merit, and that the order here
under review should be affirmed.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitions should be denied.
With regard to the owner's appeal, it is apparent that the
owner is attacking the underlying rent reduction order and not the
order restoring rent. Since the owner's application has been
granted by the Administrator, the owner has not been aggrieved by
the issuance of the order here under review. The owner's petition
is, therefore, denied.
With regard to the tenant's appeal, the Commissioner finds
that the Administrator correctly ordered rent restoration for this
CD110192RO/CG120084RT
rent stabilized tenant effective the first rent payment date
following service of the owner's application on the tenant. The
application was served on the tenant on December 1, 1988. The
tenant's appeal is denied.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
