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.:
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 8, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
March 31, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 229 West 101st Street, New York, New York,
Apartment 2-D, wherein the Administrator granted the owner's
application for rent restoration.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly granted
the owner's application for rent restoration.
On September 24, 1987, the owner filed an application for rent
restoration, alleging that it had restored all those services which
were the subject of the Rent Administrator's rent reduction order
of September 24, 1987, issued under Docket No. BG410002S.
The tenant filed an answer to the application alleging that the
failure to maintain services for which the Rent Administrator
reduced the rent has not improved and that the bathroom ceiling
continues to pose problems.
A Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspection
conducted on January 22, 1988, revealed the following:
1. No evidence of water stains or active leak on
living room ceiling but ceiling displays bulge
in small area.
2. Bathroom basin has been repaired.
3. No evidence of defective shower faucets.
Based on this inspection report, the Rent Administrator granted the
owner's rent restoration application with a directive to repair the
living room ceiling.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, that
the bathroom ceiling collapsed in March, 1987, because of a leak
and repairs have still not been made.
The petition was served on the owner on May 24, 1988, and on May
26, 1988, the owner filed an answer to the petition stating that
all necessary repairs were made in July, 1987 and that the DHCR
inspection supports this position.
After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The owner, on proof of restoration of those services which were the
subject of the Rent Administrator's reduction order is, by law,
entitled to an order of rent restoration.
A review of the record reveals that the rent reduction order
reduced the rent based upon the owner's failure to provide required
The DHCR inspection of January 22, 1988, confirmed that the owner
had restored all of those services which were the subject of the
Rent Administrator's rent reduction order of September 24, 1987.
The Commissioner notes, however, that the tenant's PAR addresses
the failure of the owner to effect repairs on the bathroom ceiling.
A review of the file discloses that the bathroom ceiling was not a
subject of the rent reduction order.
Accordingly, the tenant's petition fails to establish that the Rent
Administrator improperly granted the owner's application.
Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly
based his determination on the entire record, including the results
of the on-site inspection conducted on January 22, 1988, and that
the Administrator properly granted the owner's application to
restore the rent.
The tenant may file another complaint of failure to maintain
services 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
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby, is
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA