STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: DH410287RT
DOCKET NO.: CK410054OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 16, 1989, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on July 17,
1989, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 111 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y., Apt. 6-B,
wherein the Administrator granted the owner's application for a
restoration of rent, effective December 1, 1988.
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
restored the rent of the subject apartment effective December 1,
On September 23, 1988, the owner filed an application for rent
restoration alleging that all services which were the subject of
the rent reduction order of March 16, 1988, under Docket No.
BG410876S, had been restored.
The tenant filed an answer to the application alleging that
contrary to the owner's statement in the application, services were
not fully restored.
A DHCR inspection conducted on May 1, 1989, revealed that the
bathroom pipes have been repaired and that the toilet water
pressure is adequate.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, that
the Rent Administrator erred by restoring the rent, effective
December 1, 1988, because some of the services were restored after
December 1, 1988.
The petition was served on the owner on November 20, 1989 and on
December 21, 1989, the owner filed an answer to the petition
stating that all services have been restored in a workmanlike
After a 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 reduction order is, by law,
entitled to an order of restoration.
The tenant's petition on appeal does not challenge the Rent
Administrator's determination that the owner restored services, but
rather attacks the propriety of the December 1, 1988 rent
restoration effective date.
With regard to the issue of the effective date of rent restoration
ordered by the Administrator, the Commissioner notes that it is the
policy of the DHCR to order rent restoration for rent stabilized
tenants effective the first rent payment date following service of
the application on the tenants.
A review of the record shows clearly that the application for rent
restoration was served on the subject rent stabilized tenant on
November 25, 1988.
The Commissioner finds, therefore, that the Rent Administrator's
determination that the rent should be restored, effective December
1, 1988, was correct.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and
the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA