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.: DE110195RO
RICHARD ALBERT RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 23, 1989 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued on May 3, 1989. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt 2B located at 93-41 222nd Street,
Queens Village, N.Y. The Administrator granted the owner's rent
restoration application and ordered the rent restored effective
March 1, 1989.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
This proceeding was commenced on January 4, 1989 by the filing
of a rent restoration application wherein the owner alleged, in
sum, that it had restored services for which a rent reduction order
bearing Docket No. QS004078S had been issued. The Commissioner
notes that, in proceedings bearing Docket Nos. BK110102OR and
CE110066OR, the Administrator had found that all services ordered
restored in Docket No. QS004078S had been restored except for the
space between the bathroom door frame and wall. The tenant was
served with a copy of the application and afforded an opportunity
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on April 18, 1989 and
confirmed the owner's allegation to the effect that it had
corrected the problem regarding the space between the bathroom door
frame and the wall. The Administrator issued the order being
appealed on May 3, 1989 and granted the owner's application
effective March 1, 1989.
On appeal the owner states, in sum, that the effective date
for rent restoration should have been February 1, 1986 and not
March 1, 1989. The owner argues that the effective date should be
changed based on the tenant's alleged denial of access to the
subject apartment as well as the fact that the rent reduction was
not justified. The petition was served on the tenant on
September 9, 1989.
The tenant filed a response on September 23, 1989 and stated,
in sum, that the order being appealed was correctly issued and
should be affirmed.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the effective date of rent
restoration for a rent stabilized tenant is the first rent payment
date following service of the owner's application on the tenant.
The application was served on the tenant in February, 1989. The
Administrator correctly ordered rent restoration effective March 1,
1989, the first rent payment date following service of the
complaint. The order being appealed is affirmed.
The Commissioner further notes that the owner's administrative
appeal is wholly an impermissible collateral attack on the
underlying rent reduction order. The owner's proper recourse was
to timely file an administrative appeal against the rent reduction
order. A review of the Division's records discloses that the owner
did file an appeal against the rent reduction order. That appeal
was assigned Docket No. CE110203RO and was denied on May 26, 1994.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
LULA M. ANDERSON