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

          APPEALS OF                            DOCKET NOS.:                 
                                                EJ110353RO; EJ110354RO;
                                                EJ110355RO; EJ110356RO;
                                                EK110025RO; EK110026RO;
                                                EK110027RO; EK110028RO; 
                                                EK110030RO; EK110033RO;
                                                EK110063RO; EK110251RT.
               Richard Albert and   
               Elizabeth C. Blanda                               
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                DOCKET NO.: DI130018OR       

               On November 2, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed 
          petitions for administrative review of an order issued on October 
          18, 1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 94-05, 93-41, 93-43, 93-45, 93-47, 93-49 
          222 Street, Various apartments, Queens Village, N.Y. wherein the 
          Administrator determined the owner's various rent restoration 
          applications.  The Administrator's various orders issued under the 
          above docket denied some applications either in whole or in part 
          and granted others.  On November 9, 1990, the above named 
          petitioner-tenant filed a petition for administrative review of the 
          same order.

               The petitions are consolidated for disposition herein because 
          they involve common questions of law and fact.  

               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.
               In the PAR, the owner asks that the order denying his 
          application for rent restoration be rescinded and the rent restored 
          as of the date of the order which reduced the rent on the basis 
          that basement window screens were never a required service, that 
          the conditions of the bent and loose chain stanchions and courtyard 
          directory are too minor a condition for finding a failure to 
          maintain services, that federal law requires that the owner be 


          given a hearing before penalties are assessed, that hedge trimming 
          and garbage at the bottom of the stairway, if true, are too minor 
          a condition for the imposition of a rent reduction, that ongoing 
          maintenance services such as these cannot be evaluated in a single 
          inspection; that the inspection of April 20, 1990 revealed the 
          grounds are clean and therefore no rent reduction for this item is 
          justified because routine maintenance is correcting conditions as 
          they arise; that repairs to the sidewalks which the agency 
          inspector determined were unworkmanlike actually meet industry 
          norms and have passed previous inspections.
               In her PAR, the tenant contends that inasmuch as the 
          Administrator's order granted only a partial restoration of rent 
          based on a partial restoration of services, the owner falsely 
          affirmed that he had restored all the services for which the rent 
          reduction order was issued.  The tenant, therefore requests that 
          the order be rescinded.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitions should 
          be denied.

               The owner's contention that basement window screens were not 
          provided on the base date but were installed only on certain 
          windows as a measure to combat vandalism is a challenge to the rent 
          reduction order issued under Docket Number BL130117B and will be 
          addressed in the various petitions which the Commissioner notes the 
          owner has filed against that order and the contents of those 
          petitions will be addressed by a separate order.

               The owner's other contentions that the conditions cited in the 
          rent restoration order are not sufficient to form a basis for a 
          rent decrease are also more properly the subject of a petition of 
          the underlying rent reduction order.  
               The owner challenges the results of the September 5, 1990 
          inspection which found that the walkways have been repaired in an 
          unworkmanlike manner.  The owner advises that this was the subject 
          of Docket Number QCS000601B which resulted in a letter from this 
          agency's Compliance Division finding that the broken pavement had 
          been repaired and was no longer a hazardous condition.  The letter, 
          a copy of which is included in the owner's PAR, is dated April 9, 
          1987 and refers to an inspection conducted on March 26, 1987.

               While the Commissioner has, in prior cases, relied on the 
          results of that inspection as evidence of repairs, in this case the 
          inspection conducted on September 5, 1990, just prior to the 
          Administrator's order hereunder review, is more probative of the 
          conditions existing on October 18, 1990, the date of the 
          Administrator's order, than the inspection conducted 3 1/2 years 


               The Commissioner rejects the tenant's contention that the 
          owner has knowingly filed a false affirmation stating that all 
          services were restored, where the Administrator saw fit to grant 
          only a partial restoration.  The denial of an application, either 
          in whole or in part, does not presuppose a knowing false 
          affirmation.  Tenant referred in her PAR to a reply she filed in 
          response to the owner's PAR (DH110042RO) of the rent reduction 
          order and asked that the information contained therein be applied 
          to this case.  The Commissioner has reviewed that answer and finds 
          that it is not pertinent to the validity of this rent restoration 
          order.  Based on the evidence presented in the record in this case 
          there is no basis for rescinding the Administrator's order.

               The Commissioner also finds that the Administrator correctly 
          set the effective date of the rent restoration.  Pursuant to 
          Section 2202.2 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations, no order 
          granting a rent restoration with respect to a rent controlled 
          apartment, shall be effective prior to the date on which the order 
          is issued.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and 
          Code, the City Rent Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it 
               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         
                                                  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