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.:
c/o REY CAL REALTY CORP., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA