DH110333RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433





          ------------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.:
                                                       DH110333RO
                    Richard Albert,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:
                                                       CL110133OR
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On August 23, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on July 
          26, 1989, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 93-45 222nd Street, Queens Village, N.Y., 
          Apt. 3K, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's application 
          for rent restoration, based upon an inspection of the premises, on 
          May 25, 1989, which disclosed that although the apartment door-bell 
          was working properly, bell-wires were still exposed and there was 
          evidence of vermin infestation in the kitchen area.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issue 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 service was not fully restored.

          On December 27, 1988, the owner filed an application for rent 
          restoration alleging that all repairs and services which were the 
          subject of the rent reduction order of November 17, 1988, under 
          Docket No. BL120744S were restored.

          The tenant filed an answer to the application alleging that despite 
          the owner's allegations to the contrary, he has not fully restored 
          services.


          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          the door-bell was repaired by a licensed electrician in a 












          DH110333RO

          workmanlike manner; that professional exterminating services are 
          available to the tenants upon request; and that the subject tenant 
          never signed the form requesting exterminating services.

          The petition was served on the tenant on December 14, 1989 and on 
          December 30, 1989, the tenant filed an answer to the petition 
          refuting the owner's claims and stating, in substance, that the 
          inspection held on May 25, 1989 substantiated her claim that the 
          owner failed to fully restore services.  

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          The subject application for rent restoration was filed by the 
          owner, alleging that all repairs and services which were the 
          subject of the rent reduction order of November 17, 1988, had been 
          restored.

          The tenant consistently alleged both below and on appeal that the 
          owner failed to fully restore services.

          The DHCR inspection held on May 25, 1989, confirmed that bell-wires 
          were still exposed and that there was evidence of vermin 
          infestation in the kitchen.

          Accordingly, the record does not support the owner's assertion that 
          full restoration of the rent was warranted.

          The Commissioner has considered and rejects the owner's argument 
          that the tenant failed to properly request extermination services.

          A review of the file indicates that the owner had sufficient notice 
          that the subject tenant was in need of extermination services.

          The owner's PAR contains a statement that a professional 
          exterminator reported three times this year that a vermin problem 
          was not evident in the subject apartment.  This is convincing 
          evidence that the exterminator gained access to the subject 
          apartment but did not render service adequate to alleviate the 
          problem.

          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 May 25, 1989, and that the 
          Rent Administrator properly denied the owner's application to 
          restore the rent upon determining that the owner had failed to 
          fully restore services.
          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 






          DH110333RO

          the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
           
          Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately re-apply 
          for rent restoration.
           
               


          ISSUED:






                                                                     
                                             LULA M. ANDERSON
                                             Deputy Commissioner