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.: EE120441RO
Jerome A. Campo,
DOCKET NO.: DI120101OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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