CJ210164RT
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
------------------------------------x
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: CJ210164RT
Ralph Feffer,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: CD210081OR
PETITIONER
------------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 14, 1988, the above-named petitioner tenant filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
October 6, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 7201 Bay Parkway, Apt. 6-D, Brooklyn, N.Y.,
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 February 5,
1987, under Docket No. KS003447S, had been restored.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issue of the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly granted
the owner's application for rent restoration.
On February 11, 1988, the owner filed an application for rent
restoration, alleging that all services which were the subject of
the rent reduction order of February 5, 1987 had been restored.
The tenant filed an answer to the application alleging that
contrary to the owner's statement in the application, the elevator
has not been repaired and extermination services are not being
provided.
A DHCR inspection conducted on September 7, 1988, revealed that the
elevator was in good working condition and that there was no
evidence of roach infestation in the subject apartment or in the
public areas.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, pertinent part, that
elevator service is sporadic and that there is roach infestation
CJ210164RT
throughout the apartment.
The petition was served on the owner on November 29, 1988.
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 the Division of Housing and
Community Renewal, on September 7, 1988, which revealed that the
owner was maintaining all services specified in the Administrator's
rent reduction order of February 5, 1987.
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.
This order is issued without prejudice to the tenant's continuing
right to file an appropriate application for a rent reduction, if
the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization 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.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
