STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: CF430018RT
          ALAN FLACKS                             RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: CA430005RP

               On June 10, 1988 the above named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued May 6, 1988. The order concerned the housing 
          accommodations located at 313 W. 100th Street, New York, N.Y., 
          various apartments.  The Administrator issued an order correcting 
          the effective dates of a prior rent restoration order (Docket No. 
          AD430028OR) and affirming that prior order in all other respects.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 

               The owner commenced this proceeding on April 8, 1986 by filing 
          a rent restoration application wherein it stated that it had 
          restored all services for which a rent reduction order bearing 
          Docket No. LC000018B had been issued.

               A physical inspection of the subject building was conducted on 
          August 25, 1987.  The inspector reported that services had been 
          restored.  The Administrator issued a rent restoration order 
          bearing Docket No. AD430028OR on November 24, 1987.  Rent 
          restoration was granted for rent stabilized tenants effective May 
          1, 1986.  Rent restoration for rent controlled tenants was granted 
          effective December 1, 1987.

               On January 12, 1988 the Administrator sent a notice to the 
          parties advising them that the proceeding was being reopened and 
          that the above described order would be reconsidered.  The record 
          reveals that the Administrator deemed that it was necessary to 
          further investigate whether services were in fact restored on the 
          effective dates cited in the above described rent restoration 
          order.  Specifically, the Administrator proposed to conduct a 
          further inspection, without notice to the parties, to determine if 


          the building had a superintendent.  The physical inspection was 
          conducted on January 25, 1988 and revealed that the building was 
          being adequately maintained by a superintendent who lived on the 

               The Administrator issued the order being appealed on May 6, 
          1988 and modified the effective date of the rent restoration order 
          for rent stabilized tenants from May 1, 1986 to September 1, 1987 
          based on a finding that the building has had a resident 
          superintendent since August, 1987.  The effective date of rent 
          restoration for rent controlled tenants was unchanged.

               On appeal the tenant states that there is no building 
          superintendent, that the building is not maintained, that the owner 
          did not submit any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim 
          that there was a superintendent on the premises and that an 
          evidentiary hearing should be ordered to further investigate this 
          matter.  The petition was served on the owner on August 10, 1988.

               The owner filed a response on August 16, 1988 and stated, in 
          sum, that the order being appealed should be affirmed.
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The tenant's appeal states that the tenant was not aware that 
          a subsequent inspection had been conducted in January, 1988 as 
          described above.  However, the purpose of conducting this 
          inspection without notice to either party was to investigate the 
          tenant's assertion that the owner had produced a person claiming to 
          be the superintendent only when it had notice of the date and time 
          of the first inspection in 1987.  The Administrator was correct in 
          ordering the January, 1988 inspection without notice.  The 
          inspector adequately investigated the issue and clearly reported 
          that the superintendent was living in the building, that a sign had 
          been posted giving his apartment number and that the building was 
          being adequately maintained.  The inspector's report is entitled to 
          great probative weight. The order being appealed is affirmed. 

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and 
          Rent and Eviction Regulations, 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.

                                             LULA M. ANDERSON  
                                             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