Docket No. DA420088RT
                                     STATE OF NEW YORK 
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK  11433



          ------------------------------------X
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO. DA420088RT

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
          Darlene Dillon,                         ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO. CG430002AV
           
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


              On December 28, 1988, the above-named tenant filed a petition 
          for administrative review of an order issued on December 1, 1988 by 
          a Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodation known as 
          Apartment 10, 340 East 86th Street, New York, New York.

              The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record 
          and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to 
          the issues raised by the petition for review.

              On July 6, 1988, the Department of Buildings for the City of 
          New York mailed to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal 
          (D.H.C.R.) a notice which asserted that as a safety precaution the 
          Department of Buildings will disconnect the subject building's 
          electrical service on July 22, 1988.  The above-mentioned notice 
          noted that there were building violations, under Violation No. 
          MO19145, pending against the subject building.

              On November 15, 1988, the Administrator mailed a "Notice of 
          Commencement of Proceeding" to the subject landlord and to various 
          tenants which asserted, among other things, that, based on the 
          above-mentioned notice issued by the Department of Buildings, the 
          rent agency proposed to establish a maximum rent for each rent 
          controlled apartment at $1.00 per month.

              On November 18, 1988, a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment was carried out by the D.H.C.R.  The inspector, in his 
          report, noted that the electricity was working in the subject 
          building.













          Docket No. DA420088RT

              In the order under review herein, the Administrator stated 
          that: "Physical inspection held on 11/18/88 revealed that 
          electricity has been restored to the subject premises.  Therefore, 
          this proceeding is hereby terminated."

              In her petition the subject tenant asserts, among other things, 
          that the building violations reported against the subject building, 
          listed under violation No. MO19145, have not been removed; that as 
          the aforementioned violations are still pending against the subject 
          building, as the tenant asserts, the Administrator's order should 
          be revoked; that the subject building's electrical service was not 
          disconnected on July 22, 1988 or subsequently "due to the technical 
          and procedural workings of the Bureau of Electrical Control"; that 
          the subject tenant was not served with the aforementioned "Notice 
          of Commencement of Proceeding"; that the subject tenant was not 
          given an opportunity to submit a response in the proceeding before 
          the Administrator, and that the tenant asserts, as a result of this 
          procedural error the Administrator's order should be revoked.

              In his response, dated February 14, 1989, the subject landlord 
          asserts that the electricity in the subject building was never 
          disconnected.

              After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that the tenant's petition should be denied.

              The Commissioner finds that the rent agency initiated this 
          proceeding to determine if the maximum rents of the rent controlled 
          apartments in the subject building should be reduced based upon the 
          Department of Buildings' notice, dated July 6, 1988, which asserted 
          that as a safety precaution the Department of Buildings will 
          disconnect the subject building's electrical service on July 22, 
          1988.

              As the reduction of the maximum rents, in this proceeding, were 
          predicated on the disconnection of the subject building's 
          electricity by the Department of Buildings; that as the rent 
          agency's inspection report noted that on November 18, 1988 the 
          electricity in the subject building was on that the subject 
          landlord asserts that the electricity in the subject building was 
          never disconnected, and that the subject tenant dues not dispute 
          the landlord's aforementioned assertion, the Commissioner finds 
          that, in this proceeding, there is o basis to reduce the subject 
          tenant's maximum rent.

              As to the tenant's assertion that the building violations 
          reported against the subject building, listed under Violation No. 
          MO19145, have not been removed, the Commissioner finds that that 
          issue is outside of the Commissioner scope of review as the only 
          issue before the Administrator was whether the maximum rents should 
          be reduced based upon the disconnection of the subject building's 
          electricity.  As the record reflects that the subject building's 






          Docket No. DA420088RT

          electricity was not disconnected, the Commissioner finds that the 
          Administrator's order under review herein should not be disturbed.

              The record reflects that the petitioner was not served with a 
          "Notice of Commencement of Proceedings."  The Commissioner is of 
          the opinion that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to 
          submit a response in the proceeding before the Administrator, and 
          as a result the petitioner's right to due process was denied.

              However, the Commissioner is of the opinion that it is not 
          necessary to remand this proceeding to the Administrator as there 
          is not issue for the Administrator to determine; as the record 
          reflects and the petitioner admits, that the subject building's 
          electricity was not disconnected.

              The Commissioner finds that this order and opinion is issued 
          without prejudice to the right  of the subject tenant to file a 
          complaint with the rent agency for a reduction in rent due to a 
          diminution of services, if the facts so warrant.

              THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent and Rehabilitation 
          Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, 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, 
          affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                            
                                             Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                             Deputy Commissioner






    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name