DH110321RT
                                  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.: DH110321RT
                                                  
          MELISSA JOSA                            RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: DA130180OR
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On August 23, 1989 the above named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued on August 11, 1989. The order concerned the 
          housing accommodations known as Apt 6G located at 42-45 Kissena 
          Blvd, Flushing, N.Y.  The Administrator granted the owner's rent 
          restoration application.  

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 
          appeal.

               The owner commenced this proceeding on January 2, 1989 by 
          filing a rent restoration application wherein it alleged, in sum, 
          that it had restored all services for which a rent reduction order 
          (Docket No. BB130013B) had been issued.  The Commissioner notes 
          that the Administrator reduced the rents based on findings of a 
          defective elevator door that did not close properly, inadequate 
          water pressure and a cracked door window pane. The tenants were 
          served with copies of the application and afforded an opportunity 
          to respond. 
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspection was conducted on June 30, 1989 and 
          confirmed the owner's assertions in the application, to the effect 
          that required services had been restored.

               The Administrator issued the order being appealed on August 
          11, 1989 and ordered rent restoration for all rent stabilized 
          tenants who joined in filing the complaint effective March 1, 1989. 

               On appeal the tenant states that the rent restoration order 
          should not have been made effective prior to the inspection 
          conducted in June of 1989.  The tenant also states that it did not 












          DH110321RT

          begin taking the rent reduction until December, 1987 and not March, 
          1987 as ordered by the Administrator.  The petition was served on 
          the owner on November 20, 1989. 

               The owner filed a response on November 30, 1989 and stated, in 
          sum, that the tenant was not being overcharged rent.
           
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The Commissioner notes that rent restoration for a rent 
          stabilized tenant is effective the first rent payment date 
          following service of the owner's application for rent restoration 
          on the tenants.  The instant application was served on the tenants 
          in February, 1989.  The Administrator correctly ordered rent 
          restoration effective March 1, 1989, the first rent payment date 
          following this service.  With regard to the tenant's other 
          assertions in the petition, the Commissioner finds that they do not 
          challenge the correctness of the order being appealed.  If the 
          tenant believes that the owner has overcharged her, she may file an 
          overcharge complaint with the DHCR.  The order being appealed is 
          affirmed.
           
               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization 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:



                                                                             
                                             LULA M. ANDERSON  
                                             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