DI110185RO

                                  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.: DI110185RO  
                                      
                    RICHARD ALBERT                                           
                                                     RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S    
                                                     DOCKET NO.: DC110098OR  
                                     PETITIONER
          -------------------------------------x

          ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN 
          PART

          On September 28, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on     
          September 13, 1989, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the 
          housing accommodations known as 94-05 222nd Street, Apt.#2J, Queens 
          Village, New York, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's 
          application for rent restoration based upon an inspection of the 
          premises on August 15, 1989 which disclosed that:

                         1.   Intercom system is inoperative.

                         2.   Signs of vermin droppings in kitchen.

                         3.   Toilet bowl is cracked.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of 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 March 14, 1989, the owner filed an application for rent restora-  
          tion alleging that all services specified in the rent reduction 
          order of February 16, 1989, under Docket No. BL110736S, were 
          restored.

          The tenant filed an answer to the complaint alleging that the owner 
          failed to restore all services specified in the rent reduction 
          order.















          DI110185RO



          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          it is yet to be established whether intercom service is a required 
          service; that the exterminator reported that there were no signs of 
          vermin activity; that the tenant usually denies his workers access 
          to her apartment; that the toilet bowl has a hairline crack above 
          the waterline on the inside of the bowl which does not impair the 
          function of the bowl; and that the Rent Administrator failed to 
          conduct a hearing in the rent reduction proceeding under Docket No. 
          BL110736S.

          The petition was served on the tenant on January 26, 1990 and on  
          February 2, 1990, the tenant filed an answer to the petition 
          stating that the inspection conducted by the DHCR supports her 
          contention that the owner failed to fully restore services and that 
          the DHCR issued an order under Docket No. QCS000151B which found 
          that an operable intercom system is a required service.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be granted in part.

          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.

          However, in a PAR against an order denying the owner's application 
          for rent restoration, an owner cannot challenge the reason for the 
          original reduction in rent.  The owner is required to file a Petit- 
          ion for Administrative Review (PAR) against the rent reduction 
          order.

          The Commissioner, therefore, finds that with the exception of the 
          intercom issue, the issues raised in the PAR constitute an 
          impermissible collateral attack against the rent reduction order of 
          February 16, 1989.

          The issue of the intercom has already been determined in Docket No. 
          FH120007RK which found that the intercom is not a required service 
          in any building in the complex.  Accordingly the finding of a 
          defective intercom in this tenant's apartment is revoked.

          A DHCR inspection held on August 15, 1989, showed that the owner 
          failed to restore all of those other services specified in the rent 
          reduction order of February 16, 1989.

          The remaining allegations in the owner's appeal are without merit.










          DI110185RO



          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 August 15, 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.  The Commissioner notes that in accordance 
          with this opinion, the Rent Administrator's order denying 
          restoration of rent should be modified to delete any reference to 
          an inoperative intercom system.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in 
          part, and that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same 
          hereby is, modified in accordance with this order and opinion.  The 
          order and determination of the Rent Administrator is hereby affirm- 
          ed in all other respects.

          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