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 May 17, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a peti-
tion for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on April
20, 1988, concerning the housing accommodation known as Apartment
3M-D, 117-01 Park Lane South, Kew Gardens, New York, wherein the
Administrator granted in part the owner's rent restoration
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the administrative appeal.
The record reveals that the owner commenced this proceeding on
November 25, 1987, by filing an application to restore rent that
had been reduced in Docket No. BD120018S. The rent had been
reduced by $17.50 plus 10% of the maximum legal rent for a missing
shower door latch ($2.00), cracked tiles on the bathroom floor
($2.00), peeling paint and plaster on walls and ceilings throughout
the apartment (10%), and defective sills and frames on nine windows
($13.50). The owner stated in the application that the shower door
latch was repaired; the plastering was done, and work on the
windows was begun but the tenant cancelled and advised that she
would call for an appointment when ready.
The application was sent to the tenant on January 5, 1988. The
tenant responded that the work done has been so bad that it cannot
be considered to have corrected the violations and had actually
downgraded the condition of the apartment. Specifically the tenant
asserted that her complaint concerned the fact that the shower door
opens on the wrong side requiring one to get in the shower in order
to turn the water on, the small bathroom door does not lock, no
scraping or plastering of the walls was done, work was begun on the
windows but the workmanship was poor and the tenant was not con-
tacted about completion, and repair of the bathroom tile floor is
worse than the original condition.
The apartment was physically inspected by a Division of Housing and
Community Renewal (DHCR) employee on March 16, 1988. The inspector
reported that a shower door latch had been installed, the bathroom
floor tiles were missing grout, the ceilings and walls in the
master bedroom and hallway had peeling paint and plaster, the
wallpaper in the main bathroom was uneven and the paper showed an
uneven surface underneath, the second bedroom wall was cracked, the
living room walls had peeling paint and plaster, and the kitchen
and second bedroom windows had rough and discolored sills and the
moldings were sanded but not painted.
Based on this inspection, the Rent Administrator ordered the
maximum legal rent for the rent controlled apartment restored by
$11.00 per month for installation of the shower door latch and
repair of six windows. The owner was advised to refile for the
remaining 10% and $6.50 when repairs are completed to the bathroom
floor tiles, the
peeling paint and plaster throughout the apartment, and the windows
that have rough and discolored sills and moldings.
In the petition for administrative review, the tenant asserts that
the original complaint stated that the small bathroom door does not
have a lock, and that some windows and sills were poorly sanded and
left unfinished. The tenant added that the tile floor that was
installed has various defects besides missing grout.
The petition was served on the owner on July 5, 1988.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
The tenant's petition is in the nature of a challenge to the
validity of the rent reduction order and its purported omission of
certain items that were listed in the complaint. Such objections
are not appropriate matters for consideration in this proceeding in
which the only issue involved is whether the services listed in the
rent reduction order have been restored. The record, including the
physical inspection, adequately supports the Administrator's
determination that some repairs were completed and others were not,
warranting a partial rent restoration.
Objections to the rent reduction order can be considered only in a
timely appeal of that order and the Division's records reveal that
no such appeal was filed by the tenant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City, it is
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