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


    

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