STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:              
                     VICTOR GARCIA,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     CA520183OR 


          On September 9, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          August 29, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 54-60 Wadsworth Terrace, New York, New York, 
          Apartment 43, wherein the Administrator partially granted the 
          owner's application for rent restoration.

          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 granted 
          the owner's application for rent restoration in part.

          On January 20, 1988, the owner filed an application for rent  
          restoration, alleging that it had restored all those services which 
          were the subject of the Rent Administrator's rent reduction order 
          of December 21, 1987 issued under Docket No. BD520619S.

          The tenant filed an answer to the application alleging that the 
          correct rent for the subject apartment is $91.37 per month and not 
          $94.72 per month.

          A Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspection 
          conducted on June 17, 1989, revealed the following:

               1.   Kitchen cabinet (wall mount) plastered.
               2.   Bathroom ceiling and wall plastered.
               3.   Doors have been repaired.


          The inspector also found, however, that the painting of the kitchen 
          cabinet walls, bathroom ceiling and wall were incomplete.

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          numerous errors have been found regarding the Maximum Base Rent 
          (MBR) calculations.

          The petition was served on the owner on October 11, 1988 and on 
          August 18, 1992, the owner filed an answer to the petition stating 
          that all repairs and services are being maintained in the subject 
          apartment at all times.

          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.

          A review of the record reveals that the rent reduction order 
          reduced the rent based upon a decrease in essential services.

          The DHCR inspection of June 17, 1988, confirmed that the owner 
          partially restored those services specified in the tenant's 
          complaint.  The only service found wanting was the painting of the 
          kitchen cabinet walls, bathroom ceiling and wall.

          The Commissioner notes, however, that the tenant's PAR fails to 
          address the issue of whether the owner properly restored painting 

          The only substantive issue raised on appeal is whether the tenant's 
          Maximum Base Rent was correct.  No proof was adduced by the 
          petitioner challenging the Rent Administrator's determination that 
          the owner partially restored services.  The rent computation raised 
          by the tenant is not an appropriate matter for consideration in 
          this appeal but may be the subject of an overcharge complaint that 
          the tenant may file if he thinks he is being charged an illegal 

          Accordingly, the tenant's petition failed to establish that the 
          Rent Administrator improperly granted the owner's application in 


          Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly 
          based his determination on the entire record, including the results 
          of the on-site inspection conducted on June 17, 1988, and that the 
          Administrator properly granted in part the owner's application to 
          restore the rent.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the  Rent & Evic- 
          tion Regulations for New York City, 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 


                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                Deputy Commissioner          


TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name