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.: CF430287RO
JOSEPH KIZNER RENT
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 filed a timely Petition for
Administrative Review against an order of the Rent Administrator
issued on June 1, 1988. The petition was erroneously docketed twice
and assigned the two docket numbers set forth above. The order
being appealed concerned the housing accommodations located at 332
West 89th Street, New York, N.Y., various apartments. The
Administrator denied the owner's application for rent restoration
ruling that the proceeding assigned Docket No. BH410174OR was a
duplicate of a proceeding assigned Docket No. BF420046OR.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The owner commenced this proceeding on May 1, 1987 by filing
a rent restoration application and stated, in sum, that it had
restored all services for which a rent reduction order bearing
Docket No. LC000017B had been issued.
The Administrator issued the order being appealed on June 1,
1988. The proceeding was terminated based on the fact that the
owner had filed for and been granted rent restoration for the
conditions cited in Docket No. LC000017B in Docket No. BF420046OR.
The Administrator denied the owner's application in this proceeding
as duplicative of Docket No. BF420046OR.
On appeal the owner raises arguments relating to the order
issued in Docket No. LC000017B stating, in sum, that the
retroactive effective date was unfair. The petitions were served
on the tenants.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitions should be denied.
The order appealed herein merely dismissed a duplicative rent
restoration proceeding. The owner may not utilize an
administrative appeal from this order to attack either the
underlying rent reduction order or the order issued in Docket No.
BF420046RO. The order being appealed, which dismissed the instant
proceeding as duplicative, 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.
LULA M. ANDERSON