CH110046RT
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433





          ------------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.:
                                                       CH110046RT
                    Steve Taylor,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:
                                                       BL110198OR
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On August 11, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          July 19, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 138-58 68th Drive, Flushing, New York, 
          Apt. 20-B, wherein the Administrator granted the owner's 
          application for rent restoration based upon a finding that those 
          services which were the subject of the Rent Administrator's 
          reduction order of July 22, 1987, under Docket No. AG111522S, had 
          been restored.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issue of the administrative appeal.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly granted 
          the owner's application for rent restoration.

          On July 19, 1988, the owner filed an application for rent 
          restoration, alleging that all services which were the subject of 
          the rent reduction order of July 22, 1987 had been restored.

          The tenant filed an answer to the application alleging that 
          contrary to the owner's statement in the application, all repairs 
          were not done or they were done in an unworkmanlike manner.




          A DHCR inspection conducted on April 5, 1988, revealed that:













          CH110046RT

          1.   Toilet is operating.
          2.   The living room window is repaired.
          3.   Adequate hot water pressure.
          4.   The master bedroom wall has been plastered.
          5.   The bedroom window screen has been repaired.
          6.   The roof hole is repaired.
          7.   No evidence of defective electrical fixtures.

               The owner was also cautioned to paint the master bedroom wall 
               and plaster and paint a new crack which was in evidence on the 
               master-bedroom wall.

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          the toilet has not been repaired; that there is inadequate hot- 
          water pressure and that the master-bedroom wall was not fixed.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          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 an order of rent restoration.

          The record clearly shows that the Rent Administrator in granting 
          the owner's restoration application, based his findings on the 
          results of an inspection held by the Division of Housing and 
          Community Renewal, on April 5, 1988, which revealed that the owner 
          was maintaining all services specified in the Administrator's rent 
          reduction order of July 22, 1987.

          The Commissioner deems it appropriate to rely on the results of the 
          Division's inspection and finds that the petitioner failed to 
          adduce convincing evidence that the inspector's findings were 
          erroneous in any way.

          The Commissioner notes that the inspection showed that a new crack 
          had appeared on the master-bedroom wall but that all other repairs 
          had been made in a workmanlike manner.

          This order is issued without prejudice to the tenant's continuing 
          right to file an appropriate application for a rent reduction, if 
          the facts so warrant.





          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 






          CH110046RT

          the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
             
               


          ISSUED:






                                                                     
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             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