STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 20, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
August 19, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 148 West 67th Street, Apt. 17, New York,
N.Y., wherein the Administrator determined that the owner should be
granted partial restoration of the rent based upon a finding that
certain services have been restored. The order specified that the
owner may reapply for the remaining $1.00 when repair is completed
to the minor spot on the bathroom ceiling where the paint is
The Commissioner has reviewed all of 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.
On February 17, 1988, the owner filed an application for rent
restoration alleging that services for which a rent reduction order
had been issued by the Administrator on April 30, 1987, under
Docket No. AF420247S, had been restored. The rent had been reduced
for defective windows in the living room and bedroom and a
defective bathroom ceiling.
The tenant filed an answer to the application alleging that the
bathroom ceiling was not fixed and raising other complaints that
were not the subject of the rent reduction order.
A DHCR inspection conducted on July 6, 1988, revealed that with the
exception of a minor spot on the bathroom ceiling, all repairs
which were the subject of the Administrator's reduction order were
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant refers to the answer he filed to
the application and asserts that all repairs were not completely
taken care of.
The petition was served on the owner on October 7, 1988, and on
October 21, 1988, the owner filed an answer to the petition
stating, in pertinent part, that the tenant signed a consent that
all work was completed as required.
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 clearly shows that the Rent Administrator in partially
granting the owner's restoration application, based his findings on
the tenant's statement of consent filed with the owner's
restoration application and the results of the DHCR inspection held
on July 6, 1988. The Administrator's order is consistent with the
tenant's statement on appeal that not all repairs were completed
and that only a partial rent restoration was warranted.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations for New York City, 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