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.:
MOHAMMAD A. MALIK
C/O MAPLE REALTY INC., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 15, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) of an order issued on
August 11, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodations known as 134-38 Maple Avenue, Flushing, New York,
Apartment 3-D, wherein the Administrator determined that the
owner's application to restore the rent should be denied based upon
the owner's failure to restore services as shown by the results of
an inspection held on June 24, 1988.
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 denied
the application to restore the rent of the subject apartment.
On January 30, 1988, the owner filed an application to restore the
rent alleging that the services which were the subject of the rent
reduction order, dated July 28, 1986, under Docket No. Q003836S,
The application was mailed to the tenant on March 10, 1988.
A DHCR inspection conducted on June 24, 1988, revealed that:
1. Bathroom has peeling paint and plaster due to
2. Evidence of vermin infestation in the kitchen,
bathroom and hallways; and
3. Water-stains are observed on the living room,
bedroom and dining room ceilings and walls.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
the tenant has repeatedly refused access to her apartment to its
workers for the purpose of making repairs.
The tenant filed an answer to the petition stating that the owner
failed to make any of the repairs.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The record below shows that the owner's application for rent
restoration unequivocally stated that the repairs which were the
subject of the rent reduction order of July 28, 1986, were com-
pletely performed, not that access could not be obtained.
This contradicts the owner's subsequent assertion that the tenant
was unreasonably refusing access to its workers to make repairs.
Based upon the evidence in the record, the Commissioner finds that
the Rent Administrator properly denied the owner's application for
Upon a restoration of services the owner may reapply for a rent
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