EA 410001-RT;  EK 410218-RO

                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:   
                                                  EA 410001-RT                
                                                  DK 410218-RO
                 EVANGELINA ROSTEGUI            RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S      
                and S & M ENTERPRISES     DOCKET NO.:
                                                  DD 420100-OR


          On November  24,  1989,  the  above-named  petitioner-tenant  and
          petitioner-owner filed Administrative Appeals  against  an  order
          issued on October 27, 1989, by the District  Rent  Administrator,
          92-31 Union  Hall  Street,  Jamaica,  New  York,  concerning  the
          housing accommodations known as various apartments  at  207  East
          85th Street, New York, New York.

          The tenant's Administrative Appeal was reject d  by  the  Commis-
          sioner on December 6, 1989, and the petitioner timely refiled the 
          petition on January 4, 1990.

          The Commissioner has consolidated these  two  petitions  as  they
          involve common questions of law and fact.

          The issue herein  is  whether  the  District  Rent  Administrator
          properly determined the owner's rent restoration application.

          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 appeals.

          The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed by  the  tenant
          herein, found that some of the conditions upon which an order was 
          issued reducing the rent have  been  corrected  and  warranted  a
          partial restoration of the rent  in  the  amount  of  $16.00  per
          month, effective November 1, 1989.  The District Rent Administra 
          tor's findings were based upon an  inspection,  held  on  October
          12,1989, which showed, inter alia, that the front  entrance  door
          to the building was working properly and that lights  were  func-
          tioning in the vestibule area.  Other services, such as lights in 
          the rear yard, basement door-lock and  adequate  mail-boxes  were
          found to be wanting.

          EA 410001-RT;  EK 410218-RO

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenant substantially alleged  that  the
          building's front doors need to be locked and that more light  was
          needed in the fire-escape area.

          The owner's appeal filed under Docket No. DK 410218-RO stated, in 
          essence, that the District Rent Administrator  erred  as  regards
          his finding about the lights in the rear yard, basement door-lock 
          and mailboxes and  further  that  the  inspector's  findings  are
          without probative value.

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

          The owner filed an answer to the tenant's petition on  March  26,
          1990, in which it claimed that the tenant's allegations on appeal 
          were irrelevant to the  challenged  order  and  that  her  claims
          referred to alleged conditions, which were not the subject of the 
          order granting a partial rent  restoration  and  further  that  a
          front-door lock was installed on February 14, 1990.

          The Commissioner notes that the record clearly reflects that,  as
          of the date of  the  initial  inspection  on  October  12,  1989,
          conditions were partially restored by the owner.

          However, a review of the file sho s  that  the  tenant's  allega-
          tions, on appeal, were not relevant, in that, certain allegations 
          were never  raised  below  and  other  allegations  were  already
          considered below and rejected by the District Rent Administrator.

          Accordingly,  the  Commissioner  finds  that  the  District  Rent
          Administrator properly restored the rent,  n  part,  upon  deter-
          mining that the owner had partly restored services.

          If the tenant is still aggrieved, she may file a de novo  service
          complaint with the Rent Administrator, if the facts so warrant.

          As to the owner's appeal, a second DHCR inspection held on  April
          11,  1991  revealed,  in  essence,  that  all  remaining  service
          deficiencies that were the subject of the restoration order dated 
          October 23, 1989, had been corrected.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the District Rent Admin 
          istrator  properly  determined  the  owner's  application  for  a
          restoration of rent based upon the first inspection dated October 
          12, 1989, which showed that, contrary to the  owner's  statements
          on appeal, not all of the conditions listed in the District  Rent
          Administrator's  order  of  restoration   had   been   adequately
          addressed.  It was proper for the District Rent Administrator  to
          rely upon the inspector's findings which bear  greater  probative
          value than the self-serving, inadequately support d  and  tenant-
          challenged statements of the owner.

          The Commissioner notes that on May 22, 1991,  the  District  Rent

          EA 410001-RT;  EK 410218-RO

          Administrator issued an order, based  on  the  second  inspection
          held on April 11, 1991, which acknowledged  that  the  owner  has
          fully complied with prior directives and has fully  restored  all
          those services not previously maintained. 

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the  provisions  of  the  Rent  and
          Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is,

          ORDERED, that these  administrative  appeals  be,  and  the  same
          hereby are, denied, and that  the  order  of  the  District  Rent
          Administrator be, and the same hereby is affirmed.


                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                Acting 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