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.:
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 30, 1989, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a petition
for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on May 11, 1989,
by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodation
known as 47 Jane Street, New York, New York, Apartment 6, wherein
the Administrator determined that the owner's application for a
restoration of rent based upon a restoration of services should be
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly
restored the rent of the subject apartment.
On October 24, 1988, the owner filed an application alleging that
services for which a rent reduction order had been issued by the
Administrator on June 1, 1988, under Docket No. BJ430068B, had been
DHCR (Division of Housing and Community Renewal) inspections con-
ducted on February 7, 1989 and March 21, 1989, revealed that there
was no evidence of garbage accumulation in the public areas; that
adequate garbage collection is being provided; that the building
entrance door lock is operative and that some public areas were
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, that
she failed to receive notice of the application for rent restora-
tion and that the building entrance door lock was not repaired in
a workmanlike manner.
The petition was served on the owner on July 12, 1989 and on August
1, 1989, the owner filed an answer to the petition stating that the
tenant's PAR should be dismissed because his attorney mailed notice
of the proceedings below to the tenant and that the door was re-
paired in a workmanlike manner, as shown by the DHCR inspections.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The owner, on proof of restoration of those services which were the
subject of the Rent Administrator's reduction order is, by law,
entitled to an order of rent restoration.
The record clearly shows that the Rent Administrator in granting
the owner's restoration application, based his findings on the
results of two inspections held by the Division of Housing and
Community Renewal, on February 7, 1989 and March 21, 1989, which
revealed that the owner was substantially maintaining all services
specified in the Administrator's rent reduction order of June 1,
The Commissioner deems it appropriate to rely on the results of the
Division's inspections and finds that the petitioner failed to
adduce convincing evidence that the inspector's findings were
erroneous in any way.
The Commissioner has considered and rejects the tenant's contention
that it failed to receive notice of the owner's application for
The record shows that the DHCR mailed notices of the proceedings
below to the tenants, on November 16, 1988, and that several of the
tenants' executed consent statements with the owner's application,
which attested to the owner's restoration of services.
The Commissioner finds that a notice properly addressed and mailed
pre-paid is presumed to reach its destination in due course.
A review of the file discloses that several tenants actually filed
answers to the application in November, 1988.
The Commissioner also notes that the tenant's appeal failed to
raise any issue about the degree of cleanliness in the public areas
of the building.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly
based his determination on the entire record and that the Adminis-
trator properly restored the rent of the subject apartment.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabiliza-
tion Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and
the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA