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.:
G. K. J. SUBRAJ,
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely Petition for Administrative
Review (PAR) of an order issued on March 6, 1990, concerning the
housing accommodations known as 88-05 Merrick Boulevard, Apartment
1-J, Queens, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined
the owner's application to restore rent previously reduced under
Docket No. BA110304S.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the petition.
The Rent Administrator's order under Docket No. BA110304S reduced
the tenants' rent based on findings of continuously leaking hot and
cold water faucets, water damaged bathroom ceiling and walls, and
peeling paint and plaster, broken hall closet doors and a defective
The owner commenced these proceedings by filing a rent restoration
application on July 27, 1989, wherein the owner claimed that all
repairs had been completed and that the tenants agreed and
consented to have the rent restored. The tenants of the subject
apartment signed the rent restoration application to acknowledge
their consent. The owner also submitted a copy of a work order
dated July 27, 1989 signed by the tenants.
This application was processed under Docket No. DG110054OR, which
is the subject matter of this appeal. The tenants were notified of
the proceedings on August 25, 1989 but did not respond.
Thereafter, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)
conducted an inspection of the subject premises. Based on the
results of that inspection which revealed evidence of water damaged
bathroom walls and ceiling and a defective closet door, the Rent
Administrator denied the owner's rent restoration application.
In this petition for administrative review, the owner, in sub-
stance, argues that the Rent Administrator's determination of the
rent restoration application was in error. In response to the
petition, the tenants stated that the conditions had been
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition must be granted.
Policy Statement 89-1 states, in pertinent part, that if "an owner
files an application affirming that the required services have been
restored [and] the tenant consents to the owner's statements, then
the rent is restored. Otherwise, an inspection is made to deter-
mine if the required services have been restored".
In light of the fact that the tenants consented to the owner's
statement below and confirm the owner's statement on appeal, the
record does not reveal any facts to account for the variance herein
from normal processing. The rent should have been and hereby is
restored effective September 1, 1989, the first day of the month
following service of the owner's application on the tenants.
DHCR records also indicate that the Rent Administrator issued an
order, on November 26, 1990, under Docket No. EC110038OR restoring
Rent arrears, if any, due the owner from the tenants as a result of
this order may be paid by the tenants in monthly installments equal
to the rent reduction restored herein.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this Petition be, and the same hereby is, granted and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
amended to restore the legal regulated rent effective September 1,
1989, in accordance with the above.
LULA M. ANDERSON