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.: CF430018RT
ALAN FLACKS RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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