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 NOS.: CE410034RT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 20, 1988 the above named petitioner-tenant filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued on April 19, 1988 concerning the housing
accommodations known as Apt. 9N, at 200 East 15 Street, New York,
NY wherein the Administrator granted the owner's rent restoration
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence of record and has
carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues raised on
The owner filed an application seeking restoration of rent that had
been reduced in an order issued on June 19, 1987 under Docket No.
AI410075B. The rent had been reduced based on a finding of rusty
water in the building and owner stated in the rent restoration
application that the water has been rust-free since November 1,
In answer to the application, the tenant stated that the owner
continues to deny that there is rusty or dirty water in the
building and asserted that the condition was confirmed by a DHCR
inspection in January 1987 and has not yet been corrected.
The building was again inspected on February 8, 1988 by DHCR and
the inspector reported that there was no evidence of rusty water in
the building and that the hot and cold water both ran clean at the
time of inspection.
Based on this report, the Rent Administrator granted the owner's
rent restoration application.
In the petition for administrative review, the tenant asserts that
the rusty water condition has existed for many years and has not
been corrected. The tenant claims that the owner was ordered to
replace corroded pipes but has not done so.
In answer to the petition, the owner asserts that the
Administrator's order was properly based on an inspection which
found no evidence of rusty water and that if there is an occasional
problem with the water, it is beyond the owner's control because
the water supply is affected by a nearby construction project.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
An owner is entitled to restoration of rent that was ordered
reduced by DHCR because of a finding of failure to maintain
services once it is established that the required services cited in
the rent reduction order have been restored. The determination as
to whether services have been restored is generally made on the
basis of a physical inspection of the premises by a DHCR employee.
In the instant case, a physical inspection by DHCR confirmed that
there was no evidence of rusty water and the owner's application
was properly granted based on this inspection. The tenant has not
established any basis for modifying or revoking this determination.
THEREFORE in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED that these petitions be and the same hereby are denied and
the Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA