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.: CF110290RO
JOSEPH TURRICIANO RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 30, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued on June 8, 1988 concerning the housing
accommodations known as Apt. 3L, 683 Seneca Avenue, Queens, NY,
wherein the Administrator denied 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 commenced this proceeding on November 9, 1987 by filing
a rent restoration application in which he sought restoration of
rent that had been reduced in Docket No. BA110446S. The rent was
reduced based on the owner's failure to repair the mildewed bedroom
and kitchen walls, the badly warped and uneven kitchen floor and
the kitchen door that cannot be opened properly. The owner
asserted that the mildew condition is caused by the tenant doing
hot water wash in the kitchen and bathroom, that the uneven floor
condition is a result of the settling of this 1905 building and
cannot be corrected, and that the door sticks only in the summer
when the tenant refused access for repairs and is no longer a
problem in cooler weather.
The application was served on the tenant on December 1, 1987 and in
response, the tenant asserted that he does not cause the mildew
condition and uses the laundromat to do the laundry, that the floor
is dangerously uneven and has not been repaired and that he has
never refused access to the owner.
A physical inspection by DHCR on May 3, 1988 revealed that none of
the conditions cited in the rent reduction order had been repaired.
Based on the inspection report, the owner's application was denied.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner asserts that
"the work in the apartment was done mostly in the bathroom in 1986
and it does not apply to the items mentioned in your order of
The petition was served on the tenant on September 27, 1988.
In response, the tenant urged that the petition be denied.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Rent Administrator ordered a rent reduction in the order issued
on September 4, 1987 in Docket No. BA110446S based on the owner's
failure to repair the conditions described above. Any objections
to the validity of that order would have to be raised in a timely
petition for administrative review of that order which the owner
did not file. In order for the rent to be restored, the owner must
repair all the conditions for which the rent was reduced and so
establish in a rent restoration proceeding filed with the Division.
In the instant case, the owner did not make the necessary repairs.
The application was properly denied by the Administrator and the
owner has not presented in the petition any basis for modifying or
revoking that determination.
The rent reduction remains in effect until another rent
restoration application is filed by the owner and granted by the
THEREFORE in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED that this petition be and the same hereby is denied and the
Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA