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.: DE110199RO
DOCKET NO.: CL110137OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 18, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition
for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on May 2, 1989,
by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodation
known as 93-43 222nd Street, Apt.#1G, Queens Village, N.Y., wherein
the Administrator denied the owner's rent restoration application.
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.
A review of the record reveals that the owner filed an application
to restore rent on October 27, 1988 claiming that all services for
which a rent reduction order was issued on November 21, 1988 under
Docket No. BL110743S have been restored. The rent had been reduced
1. Hot and cold faucets in kitchen leak.
2. Living room wall and ceiling are peeling paint and
3. No screen in bedroom.
4. Defective screens in living room, kitchen, and
bathroom. In addition, the frames are rotted and
peeling paint and plaster.
5. Broken pane in left living room window.
6. Living room right window has a defective latch, is
difficult to open and close.
The application was sent to the tenant on January 9, 1989. The
tenant filed an answer opposing the application on the ground that
the owner had not made complete and effective repairs.
A physical inspection of the subject apartment on April 11, 1989
revealed that the kitchen faucets, living room wall and ceiling,
and window frames had been repaired but the screens had not been
restored and the living room windows had not been fixed.
Based on this inspection, the owner's rent restoration application
In the petition for administrative review, the owner asserts that
the tenant does not allow access for making repairs and that the
rent reduction order was defective.
The tenant filed an answer urging denial of the petition.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the owner's petition should be granted.
The Divisions's records reveal that the Commissioner granted in
part the owner's petition for administrative review (Docket No.
EI210258RO) of the rent reduction order (Docket No. DD210465S)
which the owner sought to have restored in this restoration
proceeding. In granting in part the owner's petition, the
Commissioner revoked that portion of the rent reduction order which
directed the owner to repair the living room windows and to restore
screens. Since these conditions are no longer the basis for the
rent reduction and are also the conditions which were found in the
restoration proceeding to have not been corrected, the owner's
restoration application should be granted, and the rent restored
effective February 1, 1989 to the level in effect prior to the rent
reduction plus all subsequent lawful increase.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted,
and the rent restored in accordance with this order and opinion.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA