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.:
MR. & MRS. ALFRED ADINOLFI,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 18, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenants filed a
Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) of an order issued on
August 1, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 1130 Stadium Avenue, Bronx, New York,
Apartment 5-K, 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 October 23, 1986, under Docket No. B004210B, 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 raised by the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly granted
the owner's application for rent restoration.
On January 6, 1988, the owner filed an application for rent restor-
ation, alleging that all services which were the subject of the
rent reduction order of October 23, 1986, had been restored.
The tenant filed an answer to the application alleging that the
owner failed to restore all services noted in the application and
that the laundry room is still filthy.
A Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspection
conducted on May 19, 1988, revealed that all repairs had been
completed. More specifically the report showed that:
1. Public hallways throughout the entire building
had been painted.
2. There was no evidence of defective laundry
The owner was also directed to immediately clean the laundry room
behind the washing machines.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, that
the owner failed to paint the entire building and that the laundry
room has not been cleaned.
The petition was served on the owner on October 6, 1988 and on
October 11, 1988, the owner filed an answer to the petition stating
that the wrong PAR was attached to the filing notice by the DHCR.
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 DHCR on May 19, 1988, which
revealed that the owner was substantially maintaining all services
specified in the Administrator's rent reduction order of October
23, 1986, with the exception of laundry room cleaning services.
The Administrator appropriately addressed the matter of laundry
room cleaning services by directing the owner to immediately clear
the area behind the washing machines.
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.
If the owner has not cleaned the laundry room behind the washing
machines, as directed by the Rent Administrator, the tenant may
commence a non-compliance proceeding with the DHCR Compliance
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabiliza-
tion 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