STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: CL110159RT
DOCKET NO.: CF110016OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 12, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
timely petition for administrative review of an order issued on
November 9, 1988, concerning the housing accommodation known as
Apt. A, 69-74 136th Street, Kew Gardens, New York, wherein the Rent
Administrator granted the owner's rent restoration application.
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 petition.
A review of the record reveals that on June 1, 1988 the owner filed
an application to restore the rents that had been reduced in Docket
No. AH110179B based on a finding that the owner had removed the
tenants' individual television antennas from the roof. The owner
stated in the rent restoration application that a master television
antenna had been installed for the entire complex at its own cost
and each tenant has had a television connection installed free of
The application was sent to the tenants on July 5, 1988. Some
tenants responded that the installation in their apartments had not
A physical inspection by DHCR on August 22, 1988 revealed that
there was a master television antenna but that connection to all
individual apartments had not yet been completed. The Rent
Administrator issued an order on November 9, 1988 granting the
owner's application, but directing the owner to complete the
connections to individual apartments.
In the petition for administrative review filed by one tenant,
without authorization to act on behalf of any other tenants, and
identifying only her own apartment as the premises involved in the
order, argues that rent restoration was not warranted as long as
antenna service remained unavailable to some tenants. The
petitioner included affidavits of five individual tenants who have
not yet received antenna service. The petitioner also alleges that
the inspector did not check individual apartments, that the
restoration order violates the terms of the Commissioner's order
denying the petition of the rent reduction order, that the
directive in the order that individual tenants be connected
contains no date for enforcement and no penalty for noncompliance
and is therefore unenforceable, and that, in any event, rent
restoration should not predate the inspection which took place on
August 22, 1988.
In answer to the petition, the owner states that all apartments
have been connected to the master television antenna except for a
few for whom the landlord's contractor has been unable to obtain
access despite bona fide efforts. The owner argues that such
uncooperative tenants should not be able to prevent a building-wide
restoration of rent.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The petitioner-tenant, who does not purport to be acting on behalf
of any other tenants or any other apartments, does not assert that
her television antenna service has not been restored or that she is
aggrieved as an individual tenant by a rent restoration without
restoration of services. The tenants who signed affidavits did not
join in the filing of the instant petition or file their own
petitions and their situations are not subject to review herein.
These tenants may file individual complaints seeking a rent
reduction if antenna service has still not been restored.
The other arguments made by the tenant in the petition are without
merit. The Administrator's order granting the owner's application
despite the finding that some apartments did not have service is
not incorrect. The owner was directed in the Commissioner's order
(Docket No. BG130109RO) to reattach the tenants' individual
antennas or install a master television antenna and make it
available to tenants free of charge. The owner complied with the
latter alternative and should not be precluded from restoration of
rent because connection of the service to a few individual tenants
has been delayed. As noted above, any individual tenant may file
a complaint if the facts so warrant.
In accordance with established policy, rent restoration for
stabilized tenants was granted effective August 1, 1988, the first
of the month following service of the application on the tenants.
There is no requirement or justification for an effective date
subsequent to the inspection.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that the tenant's petition be and the same hereby is
denied, and the Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA