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.: DE220456RT
Elaine Johnson RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 9, 1989 the above named petitioner-tenant filed a Petition
for Administrative Review of an order issued on April 18, 1989, by
the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations known
as Apt. 2F, 125 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, NY wherein the Rent
Administrator granted in part the owner's rent restoration
application and ordered rent restoration in the amount of 10% of
the maximum legal rent.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully considered
that portion relevant to the issues raised by this appeal.
A review of the record reveals that on August 24, 1988, the owner
filed an application seeking restoration of rent that had been
reduced in an order issued on March 31, 1988 in Docket Number
In answer to the application, the tenant, through counsel, stated
that the owner's application should be denied because repairs have
not been completed.
A physical inspection by DHCR on March 30, 1989 revealed that the
peeling paint and plaster condition throughout the apartment had
been repaired but not the windows.
Based on this inspection report, the Rent Administrator issued the
order appealed herein, restoring the rent by 10% of the maximum
legal rent and advising the owner to reapply for the remaining
reduction of $10.25 after repairing the windows.
In the petition for administrative review, the tenant asserts that
the portion of the order restoring the rent for the painting and
plastering of the apartment should be revoked because the work was
not done properly and immediately began to deteriorate.
The petition was served on the owner on July 12, 1989. In
response, the owner alleged that the tenant is harassing the owner
by claiming that there is something wrong every time repairs are
made in order to prevent the rent from being restored.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Rent Administrator's order was properly based on the results of
a physical inspection by a Division employee who reported that the
apartment had been plastered and painted in a workmanlike manner.
The tenant does not dispute this but asserts that the job was not
done properly and that the leak damage soon reappeared. The
Commissioner considers this to be a new condition for which the
tenant should file a new complaint. The tenant has not established
that at the time the Rent Administrator's order was issued, the
painting and plastering repairs were not done.
Therefore, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City, it is
ORDERED that this petition be and the same hereby is denied and the
Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA