DE110274RO
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.: DE110274RO
RICHARD ALBERT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: DB110059OR
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 25, 1989 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued on May 4, 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
April 1, 1989.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on February 17, 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. BL110739S had been issued. The
Commissioner notes that the rent was ordered reduced based on
findings of a defective intercom and bell and buzzer system,
evidence of vermin infestation in the apartment, apartment walls
and ceilings in need of scraping and peeling paint and plaster and
defective bedroom window screens. The Commissioner further notes
that the condition of the intercom and bell and buzzer system are
no longer active issues in this proceeding. The tenant was served
with a copy of the application and afforded an opportunity to
respond.
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 restored
services.
The Administrator issued the order being appealed on May 4,
1989 and granted the owner's application effective April 1, 1989.
DE110274RO
On appeal the owner states, in sum, that the effective date
for rent restoration should have been June 1, 1988, the effective
date of the rent reduction, and not April 1, 1989. The owner
argues that the effective date should be changed because the rent
reduction was not justified. The petition was served on the tenant
on September 11, 1989.
The tenant filed a response on October 3, 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 March, 1989. The
Administrator correctly ordered rent restoration effective April 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 PAR is wholly
an impermissible collateral attack against 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 and such appeal was assigned
Docket No. DA110210RO. Said appeal is being determined separately,
but issued herewith.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it
is
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.
ISSUED:
LULA M. ANDERSON
Deputy Commissioner
|
