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.: EK610362RT
KARLSSON & NG, P.C. RENT
FOR NICHOLAS LEON, TENANT ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On November 27, 1990 the above named attorney for the
petitioner-tenant filed a Petition for Administrative Review
against an order of the Rent Administrator issued October 23, 1990.
The order concerned various housing accommodations located at 3011
Heath Avenue, Bronx, N.Y. The Administrator granted the owner's
rent restoration application.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The owner commenced this proceeding on November 6, 1989 by
filing a rent restoration application wherein it stated that it had
restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing Docket
No. CE610098B had been issued.
The tenants were served with copies of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspection was conducted on July 27, 1990 and
revealed that the public area window sashes were loose. All other
services were found to have been restored.
The Administrator sent a notice to the owner on September 6,
1990 and notified it of the results of the inspection. The owner
was afforded an opportunity to correct the problem with the sashes
and notify the Administrator that the condition had been corrected.
The owner sent a letter to the Administrator on September 14, 1990
and stated that it had corrected the condition. The owner attached
a paid contractor's bill to the response.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
October 23, 1990 and granted the owner's application.
On appeal one tenant states that the Administrator erred in
granting the application because the owner has been collecting the
full rent for the entire time that the rent reduction order was in
effect. The tenant states that the owner should be made to
reimburse the overcharge plus treble damages. The petition was
served on the owner on December 14, 1990.
The owner filed a response on December 20, 1990 and stated
that the petition was not timely filed and that the tenant in
question voluntarily paid the full rent after service of the rent
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The petitioner has not stated any grounds upon which to attack
the order here under review. If the tenant has been overcharged,
the remedy is to file a rent overcharge complaint with the
appropriate DHCR unit. The issue of overcharges allegedly
collected by the owner is irrelevant to the question of whether the
rent restoration order here under review was correctly issued.
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA