DC210114RT
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.: DC210114RT
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: CG210010OR
MAHESH SUTHAR,
PREMISES: 4514 10th Avenue
Apt. #3B
Brooklyn, N.Y.
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued on February 8, 1989
concerning the housing accommodations relating to the above-
described docket number.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order
was warranted.
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 administrative appeal.
The proceeding was commenced on July 13, 1988 by the owner who
filed an application to restore rent based on the restoration of
services.
On July 21, 1988, DHCR mailed to the tenant a copy of the
owner's application.
The tenant filed on August 11, 1988 an answer stating that the
owner failed to repair the defective conditions.
On November 30, 1988, a physical inspection of the premises
was conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the restoration
of services.
Based on the inspector's report, the Administrator determined
that the top left window in the bedroom was repaired, that the
bathroom ceiling has been plastered and painted, and that the
bathroom paneling above the sink was repaired. The Administrator
granted the owner's application and ordered the restoration of
rent.
DC210114RT
In the petition for administrative review, the tenant contends
that the inspection was flawed, that the bathroom paneling above
the tub and sink was not repaired.
On April 24, 1989, DHCR mailed a copy of the tenant's petition
to the owner.
In answer, the owner states that the tenant is abusing the
system by denying the restoration of services which were confirmed
by inspection and by damaging the property to reduce rent unfairly.
DHCR mailed on May 9, 1989 a copy of the owner's answer to the
tenant.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
denied.
The Administrator's determination was based upon a staff
inspector's report which found that the defective conditions within
the apartment were repaired. The determination was in all respects
proper and is hereby sustained.
The tenant's contention in the petition that the inspection is
flawed is unsubstantiated and without merit.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, 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
|
