STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
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
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:
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
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
the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA