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

          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: EE120441RO

                    Jerome A. Campo,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: DI120101OR


          On May 22, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on April 26, 
          1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 41-25 49th Street, Sunnyside, New York, 
          Apartment 2-R, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's 
          application for rent restoration.  The order stated that an 
          inspection of the premises on March 29, 1990, disclosed that:

               1.   Hallway walls and ceiling have peeling paint and plaster;

               2.   Refrigerator gasket is defective and freezer compartment 
                    door is missing; and

               3.   Apartment entrance door does not self-close due to 
                    defective door springs.

          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 administrative appeal.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly denied 
          the owner's application for rent restoration based upon a finding 
          that services were not fully restored.

          On October 16, 1989, the owner filed an application for rent 
          restoration alleging that the services which were the subject of 
          the rent reduction order of July 7, 1987, under Docket No. 
          AK120558S had been restored.  The reference to Docket No. AK120558S 
          was obviously in error as the rent reduced by said order was 


          restored pursuant to an order issued on April 20, 1988 under Docket 
          No. BH110023OR. The services which are the subject of this 
          proceeding were found reduced in the proceeding under Docket No. 

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          although the refrigerator is the property of the tenant, he is 
          willing to replace it and that the defective door spring is a new 
          matter not previously brought to his attention.

          The petition was served on the tenant on July 6, 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 owner, on proof of restoration of those services which were the 
          subject of the Rent Administrator's rent reduction order is, by 
          law, entitled to apply for an order of rent restoration.

          The petition sets forth objections against the underlying rent 
          reduction order of July 7, 1987.

          The Commissioner finds that the issues raised in the petition can 
          not properly be raised in the subject proceeding which was 
          initiated by the owner to obtain a rent restoration.  The proper 
          procedure for the owner is to raise these issues in a PAR filed 
          against the underlying rent reduction order.

          With regard to the owner's contention that the door spring 
          constitutes  a new matter, the Commissioner notes that the 
          underlying complaint involved a defective apartment entrance door.  
          The Commissioner finds that the condition found by the inspector in 
          the instant proceeding is within the ambit of the original 
          complaint, and therefore rejects this contention as without merit.

          The inspection of March 29, 1990, clearly showed that the owner 
          failed to fully restore services.

          Accordingly, the owner's petition failed to establish that rent 
          restoration is warranted.

          The Commissioner finds, therefore, that the Rent Administrator 
          properly based his determination on the entire record, including 
          the results of the on-site inspection conducted on March 29, 1990 
          and that the Rent Administrator properly denied the owner's 
          application to restore the rent upon determining that the owner had 
          failed to fully restore services.

          The Commissioner notes that on February 2, 1989, under Docket No. 
          AK120558S, the Rent Administrator issued an amended order which, 


          among other things, corrected the status of the subject apartment 
          from rent controlled to rent stabilized status.

          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.



                                             LULA M. ANDERSON
                                             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