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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.: EI430143RO
350 E. 62ND STREET ASSOCIATES RENT
SHIRLEY GEIGER ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above referenced administrative appeals have been
consolidated as both contain common issues of law and fact.
The above named petitioner-owner and petitioner-tenant filed
Petitions for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued August 17, 1990. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 350 E. 62nd Street, New York,
N.Y. The Administrator granted the owner's rent restoration
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by these
The owner commenced this proceeding on November 21, 1989 by
filing a rent restoration application wherein it alleged that it
had restored the service for which a rent reduction had been
ordered in Docket No. BD430100HW. The Commissioner notes that the
rents were reduced in that proceeding based on the owner's failure
to supply adequate hot water.
The tenants were served with copies of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. Various tenants filed
responses wherein they stated, in sum, that adequate hot water was
still not being provided and that, accordingly, the application
should be denied.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. Inspections were conducted on July 8, 1990, July 18,
1990 and July 19, 1990 and revealed that adequate hot water service
was being maintained.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on August
17, 1990 and granted the owner's application. The application was
granted with regard to rent controlled tenants effective September
1, 1990. For rent stabilized tenants, the application was granted
effective February 1, 1990.
On appeal the owner states that the Administrator's order with
regard to rent stabilized tenants should be modified to order rent
restoration in December, 1987. The owner argues that repairs were
made, services were restored and the application was filed in
November, 1987 and that it is being penalized by the ordering of
rent restoration in 1990. The petition was served on the tenants
on March 4, 1991.
Various tenants filed responses wherein they stated that the
owner had not restored services and that, therefore, the order here
under review should not be modified.
The tenant states on appeal that the physical inspections
described above took place in the afternoon when demand for hot
water is low and that the inspector should have conducted the
inspections during peak hot water usage hours in the morning. The
petition was served on the owner on September 27, 1990.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitions should be denied.
With regard to the owner's appeal, the Commissioner notes that
the instant application was first received by the Division on
November 21, 1989 and that service was completed in January, 1990.
Pursuant to DHCR policy the Administrator ordered rent restoration
for rent stabilized tenants on the first rent payment date
following service of the petition on the tenants. The owner's
appeal is without merit and, therefore, the petition is denied.
The tenant's appeal is also denied. The tenant has not set
forth any argument which would challenge the results of the
inspections. There is no evidence to indicate that the hot water
in the subject building was adequate during some hours and
inadequate during others. Indeed, the tenants who have filed
responses in this proceeding allege that the hot water temperature
is continually inadequate. The order here under review is
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and
Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA