CH210127RO
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.: CH210127RO
Westwood Leasing Corp.,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: CA210143OR
PETITIONER
------------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 18, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on August 1,
1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 2611 East 13th Street, Brooklyn, N.Y., Apt.
5-J, wherein the Administrator determined that the owner should be
granted restoration of the rent effective April 1, 1988, based on
a finding that certain services had been restored.
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
restored the rent of the subject apartment, effective April 1,
1988.
The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an Application for
Rent Restoration on January 4, 1988, stating that services for
which a rent reduction order had been issued by the Administrator
on August 21, 1987, under Docket No. BA210078S had been restored.
A DHCR inspection conducted on June 2, 1988, revealed that all
repairs which were the subject of the reduction order had been
restored except for the plaster on the bedroom wall, which the
owner was directed to repair.
The tenant filed an answer to the application alleging that the
owner completed the repairs in an unworkmanlike manner.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
the Rent Administrator erred by granting the rent restoration
CH210127RO
application, effective April 1, 1988, rather than February 1, 1988.
The petition was served on the tenant on October 4, 1988 and on
October 20, 1988, the tenant filed an answer to the petition
stating that the repairs actually made were done in an
unworkmanlike manner and amounted to nothing more than a cosmetic
touch-up.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
With regard to the issue of the effective date of rent restoration
ordered by the Administrator, the Commissioner notes that it is the
policy of the DHCR to order rent restoration for rent stabilized
tenants effective the first rent payment date following service of
the application on the tenants.
A review of the record shows clearly that the application for rent
restoration was filed with the DHCR, on January 8, 1988, and was
served on the tenant on March 4, 1988.
The Commissioner finds, therefore, that the Rent Administrator's
determination that the rent should be restored, effective April 1,
1988, was correct and proper.
Accordingly, the order here under review is affirmed.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is.
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
