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.:
DOROTHY NIXON &
NOEL WILSON, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER DL 530026-OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 15, 1990, the above-named petitioner-tenants filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued December 11, 1990. The order concerned
housing accommodations known as Apartment 3-B, located at 579-87
Ft. Washington Avenue, New York, New York. The Administrator
ordered the legal regulated rent restored effective February 1,
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and has carefully con-
sidered that portion of the record relevant to the issues raised
by this administrative appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding on December 5, 1989 by filing
an application to restore rent. On September 6, 1989 t e Admin-
istrator had ordered a building-wide rent reduction for failure
to maintain services (Docket No. CL 530003-B).
The owner's application was sent to all tenants in the building
on January 24, 1990.
Petitioners filed an answer to the application in which they
asserted that services had still not been restored and that
additional violations existed.
The Administrator ordered an inspection of the premises. That
inspection was conducted on June 22, 1990 and revealed the
1. Gate leading into laundry room/garbage area
is self-closing and self-locking. The gate
can be opened from inside.
2. There is adequate amount of garba e cans pro-
vided and cans get provided with lids. There
is no evidence of any garbage in public
3. Vestibule doors at both building entrances
are kept locked. Further, in accordance with
the Multiple Dwelling Law where an entrance
door leading from a vestibule to t e main en-
trance hall or lobby is equipped with one or
more automatic self-closing and self-locking
doors, the entrance door from the street to
the vestibule need not be equipp d with auto-
matic self-closing and self-locking doors.
The Administrator issued an order on April 1, 1990 granting the
application and restoring the rent for all rent controlled
apartments by $11.00 per month effective September 1, 1990. On
December 11, 1990 an Amended Order was issued which added the
petitioner's apartment (3-B) to the apartments effected by the
prior order and restoring the rent to the level in effect prior
to the rent reduction plus subseque t lawful increases, effec-
tive February 1, 1990.
Petitioners make two arguments in urging reversal of the Admin-
istrative order. First, they claim that the Administrator
incorrectly chose the restoration date. They point out that the
February 1, 1990 effective date was only 8 days after the owner
commenced the restoration proceeding. The petitioners argue that
the initial September 1, 1990 restoration was correct. The
tenants also argue that services were not, in fact, restored as
the Administrator found. The owner filed a response to the
petition wherein he affirmed that all repairs had been completed
by October 1989.
After careful review of the evidence in the recor , the Commis-
sioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Administrator's choice of a February 1, 1990 effective date
for restoration comported with DHCR policy. When a restoration
of rent application, in a services reduction case, is granted the
effective date for rent stabilized apartments if the first day of
the month succeeding the date the tenants were served with notice
of the application and given an opportunity to respond. In this
proceeding this petitioner was served n January 24, 1990. The
February 1, 1990 date was therefore correct.
The Commissioner notes that the first orders issued in August 2,
1990 restored the rent by $11.00 per month for rent-controlled
tenants only and in accordance with the requirements of the Rent
and Eviction Regulatio s applicable to rent-controlled apart-
ments, such orders must be prospective. The effective date for
rent controlled tenants was properly established as September 1,
1990 while, as noted above, the effective date of the restoration
for rent stabilized tenants is February 1, 1990.
Petitioner's statements regarding the failure to restore services
is contradicted by the physical inspection of t e premises con-
ducted by DHCR on June 2, 1990. That inspection is dispositive
of the issue particularly in the absence of any conflicting
evidence. The tenants may file a new application for a rent
reduction if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the Rent Administrator's Amended Order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.