Adm. Review Docket Number: FF 110065 RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
------------------------------------X
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: FF 110065-RO
:
JONATHAN LEVIN/ DRO DOCKET NOS.: EI 110187-OR;
KINGSWOOD MANAGEMENT CORP., : CH 110038-OR;
BL 110065-OR;
PETITIONER : BB 110458-S
------------------------------------X
SUBJECT PREMISES:
144-01 78 Rd., Apt. No. 3C
Flushing, NY 11367
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 7, 1991, the above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued May 6, 1991 concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
number.
This administrative appeal is being determined pursuant to the
provisions of 9 NYCRR 2520.6(r) and 9 NYCRR 2523.4.
The issue herein is whether conditions upon which an order was
issued reducing the rent have been corrected, warranting restoration
of the legal regulated rent.
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.
On September 21, 1990, the owner commenced this proceeding by filing
an application to restore rent based on the restoration of services.
In its answer filed on October 29, 1990, the tenant asserted that
the windows and floors are still defective.
Thereafter on January 17, 1991, an inspection of the subject
apartment was conducted by a D.H.C.R. inspector who confirmed that
"all top window sashes throughout (the) apartment cannot move up or
down;" and that these defective conditions continue to exist.
The owner was notified on February 5, 1991 of the inspection report
and requested to submit evidence of completion of repairs within 20
days.
On February 22, 1991, the owner replied that "these windows have
always been that way, have been designed that way, and there is no
decrease in service since... (the tenant's) top sashes have never
moved."
On May 6, 1991, the Administrator issued this order appealed from,
finding that "the owner failed to submit substantial proof," denying
Adm. Review Docket Number: FF 110065 RO
the owner's request for rent restoration, and continuing the rent
reduction in effect.
In this petition, the owner submits the same letter below and
letters from its property manager, managing agent and
superintendent-alleging that "the top sash of these windows is
designed not to move...."
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
this petition should be denied.
The record shows that the owner made the same allegations without
substantial proof in the proceeding below and in this petition.
However, the order appealed from is based on an inspection which
disclosed the continued existence of defective conditions, that "all
top window sashes throughout (the) apartment cannot move up or
down." It is noted that sashes are inherently made to slide up and
down, and that the owner provided no evidence that it is designed
otherwise.
Accordingly, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the owner has
offered insufficient reason to disturb the Administrator's order,
and it should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
