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.:
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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
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