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.: DE430145RO
ABRAHAM CHINITZ RENT
c/o Kucker Kraus & Bruh, Esqs. ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 24, 1989 the above named petitioner-owner filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued on April 17, 1989 concerning the housing
accommodations known as various apartments at 502 East 89th St.,
New York, NY wherein the Administrator granted the owner's rent
restoration application and restored the rents, effective November
The Commissioner has carefully reviewed all the evidence of record
and has carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues
raised on appeal.
The owner filed an application on September 19, 1988 seeking
restoration of rent that had been reduced in an order issued on
July 9, 1986 under Docket No. LCS000342B. The rent reduction was
ordered based on a finding that the owner had failed to provide the
following services: laundry room in need of cleaning,
exterminating service, cleaning of public areas, and painting of
public halls. The owner alleged in the restoration application
that all these services had been restored.
The application was served on the tenants on October 25, 1988.
A physical inspection of the building by DHCR on February 28, 1989
revealed that all services had been restored.
Based on the inspector's report, the owner's application was
In the petition for administrative review, the owner, through
counsel, asserts that the Administrator's order indicates that an
inspection took place on February 28, 1988 and if that is true, the
restoration of rents should be effective March 1, 1988 rather than
November 1, 1988.
The petition was served on the tenants on September 5, 1989.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
An owner is entitled to restoration of rents that were ordered
reduced by DHCR because of a finding of failure to maintain
services once it is established that all required services cited in
the rent reduction order have been restored. The determination as
to whether services have been restored is generally made on the
basis of a physical inspection of the premises by a DHCR employee.
If the inspection confirms that services have been restored, the
owner's application is granted and the restoration is effective for
rent stabilized tenants the first of the month following services
of the application on the tenants.
In the instant case, the Rent Administrator's order erroneously
states that the inspection took place on February 28, 1988 when it
actually took place in 1989. However, the rents were properly
restored November 1, 1988 which was the first of the month
following service of the application on the tenants.
THEREFORE in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED that this petition be and the same hereby is denied and the
Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed, as
modified to indicate the correct date of inspection.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA