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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.: CF110166RO
SANDY R. JAMIESON RENT
PETER SKOLOS ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above referenced administrative appeals have been
consolidated as both contain common issues of law and fact.
The above named petitioner-owner and petitioner-tenant filed
timely Petitions for Administrative Review against an order of the
Rent Administrator issued June 2, 1988. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt. 1L located at 155-01 90th Ave.,
Jamaica, N.Y. The Administrator granted the owner's rent
The owner commenced this proceeding on November 5, 1987 by
filing a rent restoration application wherein it stated that it had
restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing Docket
No. AK110374S had been issued. The application was served on the
tenant. The tenant filed a response on December 21, 1987 and
stated that the owner had not restored services and that the
application should be denied.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on May 4, 1988 and
confirmed the owner's allegations in the application that it had
restored services. The Administrator issued the order here under
review on June 2, 1988 and ordered rent restoration effective
January 1, 1988.
On appeal the owner states that it agrees with the
Administrator's order but that the rent restoration date is
incorrect. The owner argues that it filed a petition for
administrative review against the underlying rent reduction order
and this petition should be deemed to be the rent restoration
application. The owner requests rent restoration effective August
1, 1987. The petition was served on the tenant on August 8, 1988.
The tenant's petition states, in sum, that the owner had not
corrected the conditions cited in the rent reduction order and that
the rent restoration order should not have been granted. The
petition was served on the owner on August 18, 1988. The owner
filed a response on August 23, 1988 and stated, in sum, that the
tenant's petition was without merit and should be denied.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitions should be denied.
With regard to the owner's appeal, the Commissioner notes that
the owner does not take issue with anything other than the
effective date. The Administrator correctly ordered rent
restoration effective the first rent payment date following service
of the application on the tenant. The filing of a petition for
administrative review against a rent reduction order is not a
substitute for the filing of a rent restoration application and the
owner's filing against the rent reduction order issued in Docket
No. AK110374S is not deemed to be a rent restoration application.
With regard to the tenant's appeal, the Commissioner notes
that the DHCR inspector is neither a party to this proceeding nor
an adversary. The inspector's report is entitled to more probative
weight than the unsupported allegations of the tenant on appeal.
The order here under review is affirmed.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA