DF110146RO                                 
                                  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.:              
DF110146RO
                   RAMON REYES      
             c/o   REY CAL REALTY CORP.,          RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     DA110134OR 
          ----------------------------------x



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          

          On June 6, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on May 2, 1989, 
          by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as 88-06 Parsons Boulevard, Jamaica, New York, Apartment 8-A, 
          wherein the Administrator denied the owner's application for rent  
          restoration, based upon an inspection of the premises on April 13, 
          1989, which disclosed that:  

               1.  New cabinets have been installed in an unworkmanlike      
                   manner.
               2.  Vermin infestation in kitchen, hallway and bathroom.
               3.  Apartment front door has a loose lock and loose knob.
               4.  Apartment doorbell is inoperable.

          The same inspection revealed that the flushometer and bathroom 
          ceiling have been repaired.

          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 denied 
          the owner's application for rent restoration based upon a finding 
          that services were not fully restored.

          On January 11, 1989, the owner filed an application for rent  
          restoration, alleging that all services specified in the rent 
          reduction order of June 2, 1988, under Docket No. BK110406S were 
          restored.












          DF110146RO                                 



          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in effect, that the 
          inspector erred in finding that repairs were made in an unwork- 
          kmanlike manner.  The owner submitted photographs to substantiate 
          equipment installation and the efficacy of all repair work.

          The petition was served on the tenant on September 15, 1989.

          After 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 rent reduction order is, by 
          law, entitled to an order of rent restoration.

          A Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspection 
          conducted on April 13, 1989, showed that new cabinets were 
          installed in an unworkmanlike manner; that there was vermin 
          infestation in the kitchen, hallway and bathroom; that the apart- 
          ment front door had a loose lock and knob and that the apartment 
          doorbell was inoperable.

          The owner's petition does not establish that restoration of the 
          rent is warranted.  The inspection revealed that repairs were not 
          done properly.

          The owner's contention that the photographs submitted prove that 
          all work was performed in a workmanlike manner is without merit.  
          The photographs are undated, do not address all the conditions that 
          required repair, do not show the quality or the nature of the work 
          performed, and are contradicted by the Division's inspection 
          report.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly 
          based his determination on the entire record, including the results 
          of the on-site inspection conducted on April 13, 1989, and that the 
          Director properly denied the owner's application to restore the 
          rent upon determining that the owner had failed to fully restore 
          services.

          The Commissioner notes that a subsequent application by the owner 
          to restore the rent was granted by the Rent Administrator on July 
          1, 1991, under Docket No. EL110073OR.













          DF110146RO                                 

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the  Rent Stabili- 
          zation 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:





                                                                           
                                                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