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.: CG120086RO
RICHARD ALBERT RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 20, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued on July 16, 1988 concerning the housing
accommodations known as Apt. 1A, 93-41 222nd Street, Queens
Village, NY, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's rent
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence of record and has
carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues raised on
A review of the record reveals that the owner filed an application
on October 26, 1987, seeking restoration of rent that had been
reduced in an order issued on October 14, 1987 under Docket Number
AG120508S. The rent had been reduced based on a finding that the
owner had failed to provide five missing screens.
The owner stated in the restoration application that window screens
are not a service provided by the landlord.
The application was served on the tenant on December 4, 1987 and in
response the tenant stated that the owner has not restored
A physical inspection on April 27, 1988 revealed that the screens
were still missing.
Based on this inspection, the owner's application was denied.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner again asserts
that he does not provide screens, that the tenant has not rebutted
this fact, that rent control records for this apartment do not list
screens, and that the tenant is cooperating with a tenant
representative to harass the owner in violation of a court order.
The petition was served on the tenant on September 8, 1988.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
A rent restoration is warranted once it is established that the
conditions cited in a rent reduction order have been repaired. In
the instant case, a physical inspection by a DHCR employee who is
not a party to the proceeding and who is presumed to be impartial
revealed that screens have not been restored. The Administrator's
order was based on the results of that inspection and the owner's
petition does not establish any basis for revoking or modifying
The owner's contention that screens are not a service provided to
this apartment is not an appropriate matter for consideration in
this proceeding which is limited to a review of whether those
services for which the rent was reduced have been restored. The
owner's petition for administrative review of the rent reduction
order was denied. (Docket No. CA120381RO)
The owner's allegation that the tenant is cooperating with a tenant
representative in violation of a court stipulation is
unsubstantiated and without merit.
The Division's records reveal that the owner's subsequent rent
restoration application was granted (Docket No. GA120302OR).
THEREFORE in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City, it is
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