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 November 7, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
November 1, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 1040 Neilson Street, Far Rockaway, New York,
Apartment 5-G, wherein the Administrator determined that the owner
should be granted full restoration of the rent based upon a finding
that certain services had been restored.
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 re-
stored the rent of the subject apartment.
The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an Application For
Rent Restoration on April 11, 1988, stating that services for which
a rent reduction order had been issued by the Administrator, on
February 26, 1988, under Docket No. BG110127S had been restored.
The tenant filed an answer to the application on May 16, 1988,
alleging that the owner failed to make the necessary repairs in the
bedroom as stated in the owner's application.
On August 16, 1988, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR) requested that an inspection be conducted of the subject
apartment but the inspector's report noted that:
The tenant called on September 12, 1988 to
cancel the complaint-S.2a (letter acknowl-
edging telephone conversation) sent same day.
The tenant returned the form, indicating that the matter had been
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, that
the bedroom walls and window frames leak every time it rains.
The petition was served on the owner on January 18, 1989, and on
February 22, 1989,the owner filed an answer to the petition stating
that the condition which was the subject of the rent reduction
order has been addressed.
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
tenant's signed statement of September 16, 1988, which was in
response to DHCR Notice S.2a, dated September 12, 1988.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly
based his determination on the entire record, including the
tenant's own statement that the complaint has been resolved and
that the Administrator properly restored the rent upon determining
that the owner had restored services.
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 Stabili-
zation 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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA