CF110157RT
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433





          ------------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: CF110157RT

                    Orville P. McNally,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: BJ110187OR
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On June 9, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a petition 
          for administrative review of an order issued on June 2, 1988, by 
          the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodation known 
          as 72-15 Little Neck Parkway, Apt. 112 H2-2, Glen Oaks, NY 11004, 
          wherein the Administrator determined that the conditions, under 
          which an order reducing the rent had been issued, had been 
          corrected and ordered a restoration of the rent.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of 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 October 22, 1987.  An inspection conducted by a 
          Division employee on April 28, 1988 revealed that the conditions 
          giving rise to the reduction in services had been corrected except 
          for the peeling bathroom tub and missing closet door in the kitchen 
          which the owner was directed to remedy immediately.  The 
          Administrator issued an order restoring the rent on June 2, 1988 
          effective January 1, 1988.

          In the PAR, the tenant contends that inasmuch as two of the 
          conditions complained of had not been remedied, as noted on the 
          order itself, the rent was improperly restored.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that the petition should be denied.


          Generally, in order for a rent restoration application to be 
          granted, it must be established that the conditions cited in the 












          CF110157RT

          rent reduction order have been restored.  There are, however, 
          limited instances where a condition listed in a tenant's complaint, 
          which is found to exist, is a deficiency which does not rise to the 
          level of a reduction in services.  In this case, the rent reduction 
          order, in relevant part, recited a defective kitchen closet door 
          and a defective bathtub.   The nature of each defect was not 
          specified in the tenant's complaint.  The Commissioner notes that 
          the owner did not file an answer in the rent reduction proceeding 
          below, and, as a result, the factual allegations of the tenant's 
          complaint were deemed admitted without an inspection having been 
          conducted (Docket No. 77851-P, issued February 16, 1984).
           
          In the proceeding to restore the rent, inspection disclosed that 
          there is no kitchen closet door and that the only discernible 
          defect in the bathtub is that it is peeling.  The inspector did 
          state in his report that there is no defect in the  kitchen 
          cabinets.

          The Commissioner finds that the defective conditions listed in the 
          rent reduction order are too vague and, it cannot be determined if 
          the closet is missing its formerly defective door (the nature of 
          the defect never having been specified), or if there is no closet 
          to begin with.  The tenant, in response to the owner's answer, 
          makes no mention of either alleged outstanding defective condition, 
          preferring to rest on the technical point that there has not been 
          a full restoration of services.  As for the defective tub, the 
          finding of a peeling tub is an inadequate description of the extent 
          of the condition to warrant a continued rent reduction.
                
          Based on the facts in this case, the Commissioner finds that the 
          Administrator properly restored the rent with the provision that 
          the conditions found in the inspection be corrected and that such 
          conditions, to the extent they may exist, do not constitute a 
          failure to maintain services.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, 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, 
          affirmed.
                     

          ISSUED:

                                                                     
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Deputy Commissioner  
    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name