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 or about April 26, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed
a petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
April 13, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 260-44 75th Avenue, Apartment 48H4-2,
Glen Oaks, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that
the conditions for which an order reducing the rent was issued,
have been corrected and granted a rent restoration.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issue raised by the administrative appeal.
The proceeding was commenced by the filing of an application to
restore rent dated August 28, 1987. The tenant filed an answer to
the application stating that apartment painting was not completed
until August 17, 1987 and that any rent restoration should not be
given retroactive effect prior to September 1, 1987. The tenant's
answer was silent concerning the owner's assertion that services
had been restored.
Thereafter, on January 19, 1988, the Division of Housing and
Community Renewal (DHCR) conducted an inspection. The inspector
reported water seepage around the bedroom windows (2 rooms) and a
stained bathtub. The inspection also revealed that the apartment
had been plastered and painted and other conditions in the order
reducing the rent had been corrected.
The Rent Administrator granted the owner's rent restoration appli-
cation and directed the owner to make the remaining repairs as
noted by the inspection.
In the petition for administrative review the tenant contends that
the owner's rent restoration application should have been denied on
the basis that, as long as the order directed repairs to be made,
there had not been a complete restoration of services.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
In prior compliance proceedings, the tenant advised by phone that
all repairs had been made and services restored and a letter was
sent by a DHCR staff member, confirming the telephone conversation
with the tenant. Based on this acknowledgement, the owner was
advised by this agency to file for rent restoration. The tenant
answered the owner's application but did not raise any question
regarding the restoration of services but merely the effective date
of such restoration.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator found that the condi-
tions remaining did not warrant a continued rent reduction.
In light of the entire record, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the Administrator correctly granted the owner's application.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
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