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.:
PETITIONER DOCKET NO.:
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 11, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition
for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on June 7, 1988,
by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodation
known as 73-37 Austin Street, Forest Hills, New York, Apartment
2-F, wherein the Administrator determined that the owner's applica-
tion to restore the rent should be partially granted based on an
inspection held on April 22, 1988. The application was partially
granted because two bedroom windows were shown to have ill-fitting
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly granted
the owner's application in part.
On November 24, 1987, the owner filed an application for rent
restoration certifying that all repairs and services which were the
subject of the March 5, 1986 rent reduction order issued under
Docket No. QC003510S were restored.
The tenant filed an answer to the application alleging, in perti-
nent part, that the owner did, in fact, furnish her with venetian
blinds and window screens.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be granted.
The owner, on proof of restoration of those services which were the
subject of the Rent Administrator's reduction order is, by law,
entitled to apply for an order of rent restoration.
The record clearly shows that, consistent with the owner's claim on
appeal, the tenant submitted a signed statement, dated November 23,
1987, attesting that the owner restored screen and venetian blind
services to the subject apartment.
Additionally, the tenant's answer to the application filed on
January 25, 1988, parallels the statements made on November 23,
A Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspection
conducted on April 22, 1988, revealed that although window screens
and venetian blinds have been installed, the venetian blinds
installed in the two bedrooms were ill-fitting.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
all missing screens and venetian blinds were replaced to the
The petition was served on the tenant on September 9, 1988.
The Commissioner notes that given the tenant's repeated assertions
throughout this proceeding that the owner restored window screen
and venetian blind services and that everything is satisfactory,
there is no basis for partially granting the owner's rent
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator
erred by issuing the order of June 7, 1988.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and Evic-
tion Regulations for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted,
and the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, revoked
and the rent be, and the same hereby is restored to July 1, 1988,
the first rent payment date following the issuance date of the Rent
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA