STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:              
                   PATRICIA FIELDSTEEL,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     CJ430083OR     


          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 
          rent restoration.

          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
                                                Deputy Commissioner


TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name