STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: ED410200RT
William P. Short III,
DOCKET NO.: DI410029OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 10, 1990, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
March 5, 1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 44 West 62nd Street, Apt. 26-E, New York,
N.Y., wherein the Administrator granted the owner's rent
restoration application based upon a finding that apartment
painting services have been restored.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issue by the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly granted
the owner's application.
On September 6, 1989, the owner filed an application for rent
restoration alleging that painting services for which a rent
reduction order had been issued by the Administrator on January 21,
1986, under Docket No. LS003044S had been restored.
The tenant filed an answer to the application alleging that
although the owner painted the subject apartment, it did so in an
A DHCR inspection conducted on February 12, 1990, revealed that the
apartment was painted in a workmanlike manner.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserts, in pertinent part, that
the Rent Administrator's order should be modified to state that the
rent is not restored until all other outstanding rent reduction
orders are also restored.
The petition was served on the owner on May 22, 1990.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The record shows that the Rent Administrator granted the owner's
restoration application based upon the results of the DHCR
inspection, held on February 12, 1990, which determined that
apartment painting services had been restored.
Moreover, a review of the petition reveals that the tenant does not
deny that painting services were restored by the owner.
The parties are advised, however, that the language in the instant
order providing for restoration of the rent to the level in effect
prior to the rent reduction "plus subsequent lawful increases"
means that no rent adjustment occurs if there are other outstanding
rent reduction orders for which rent restoration has not yet been
granted. There are no "subsequent lawful increases" if other rent
reduction orders were issued and remain in effect.
Accordingly, the Administrator's order is consistent with the
evidence in the record and the Administrator properly issued the
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA