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.: DJ110384RT
PAUL FERA RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 27, 1989 the above named petitioner-tenant filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued on October 3, 1989. The order concerned
housing accommodations known as Apt 3L located at 1727 Himrod
Street, Ridgewood, N.Y. The Administrator granted the owner's rent
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The owner commenced this proceeding on May 19, 1989 by filing
an application for rent restoration and alleged, in sum, that it
had restored all services for which a rent reduction order (Docket
No. BG110847S) had been issued. The Commissioner notes that the
Administrator reduced the rent based on findings of window sashes
in need of painting, loose bedroom window sash and defective
kitchen floor tiles.
The tenant was served with a copy of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The tenant submitted a signed
consent statement on July 17, 1989, wherein he acknowledged that
the owner had made the repairs set forth in the application.
The Administrator issued the order being appealed on
October 3, 1989 and granted the owner's application
On appeal the tenant states that the repairs made by the owner
were not properly done and that he was forced to repair the windows
and paint the sashes. The petition was served on the owner on
January 23, 1990. The owner filed a response on February 6,1990
and stated, in sum, that the tenant admitted that repairs had been
completed and that the petition should be dismissed.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator correctly issued
the order being appealed based on the tenant's consent statement.
The tenant's assertions on appeal have not rebutted the statement
nor does the tenant explain why he signed the statement in the
absence of restoration of services. The order being appealed is
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it
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.
LULA M. ANDERSON