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.:
DOCKET NO.: BI530117OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 31, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) of an order issued on
September 26, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodations known as 525 West 146th Street, various
apartments, New York, New York, wherein the Administrator granted,
in part, the owner's application for rent restoration for rent
controlled tenants based upon a finding that those services which
were the subject of the Rent Administrator's reduction order of
September 15, 1987, under Docket No. AL530080B, had been partially
The application was granted in full for rent stabilized tenants and
the owner was directed to immediately repair the exterior window
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 granted
the owner's application for rent restoration.
On September 24, 1987, the owner filed an application for rent
restoration, alleging that all services which were the subject of
the rent reduction order of September 15, 1987 had been restored.
The tenants filed answers to the application alleging that,
contrary to the owner's statement in the application, services were
not fully restored.
Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspections con-
ducted on March 2, 1988 and May 11, 1988, revealed that:
1. Courtyard drain is not defective.
2. Light is provided at the east fire exit of the
3. Six (6) garbage cans are provided.
4. Main entrance door is working properly.
5. Roof door hinges are not defective.
6. Metal cornice is not rotted and does not re-
7. Skylight is provided with a wire screen.
The exterior window frames were found to be rotten and in need of
Based on the results of these inspections, the order appealed
herein was issued.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, that
the DHCR inspector erred; that the owner failed to restore all
services; that the building exterior windows require scraping and
painting; that the metal cornice at the front of the building is
rusted and requires repairs and painting; and that the effective
date of the restoration order was in error.
The petition was served on the owner on December 2, 1988, and on
December 21, 1988, the owner filed an answer to the petition
stating that the inspection of March 2, 1988, supported the owner's
contention that all necessary repairs have been made.
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 two inspections held by DHCR, on March 2, 1988 and May
11, 1988, which revealed that the owner was maintaining substan-
tially all services specified in the Administrator's rent reduction
order of September 15, 1987.
The Commissioner finds that it was appropriate for the Adminis-
trator to rely on the results of the Division's inspections which
specifically found that the metal cornice was in good repair. The
petitioner failed to adduce convincing evidence that the inspec-
tor's findings were erroneous in any way.
As regards the exterior window frames, Division records show that
the owner installed new windows throughout the building and the
Rent Administrator issued an order on January 2, 1991, under Docket
No. EF430069OR, which determined that the owner had restored the
exterior window frames in accordance with the Rent Administrator's
The Commissioner also finds that the Rent Administrator properly
determined the effective date of the rent restoration order to be
December 1, 1987, insofar as it is the policy of the DHCR to order
rent restoration for rent stabilized tenants effective the first
rent payment date following service of the application on the
tenants. Here, the application was served on November 16, 1987.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA