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.:
PETITIONER FC 110185-OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
This determination is issued pursuant to the Deputy Commissioner's
order dated March 17, 1992 granting the tenant's request for recon-
sideration and reopening of Administrative Review Docket No. FG
The underlying rent reduction order (AG 110050-S) dated April 24,
1987 had reduced the rent based on the following findings:
1. Entrance door was drafty.
2. The painting throughout the apartment was done
in an unworkmanlike manner.
3. Blinds in the bedroom were cracked and,
4. That the bathroom sink was cracked.
The tenant previously conceded that blinds were replaced. In
addition, the apartment entrance door and sink conditions were
found to have been restored in the September 14, 1990 order under
Docket No. DK 110058-OR, which the tenant did not appeal, and which
therefore became final. According, the only issue remaining to be
resolved in the instant restoration proceeding concerned the
painting of the apartment.
The record shows that the Commissioner's order (FG 110287-RT),
herein under reconsideration, upheld a rent restoration order (FC
110185-OR) based on a DHCR inspection conducted on June 12, 1991.
The inspector had reported that there was no evidence of peeling
paint and plaster throughout the apartment and no evidence of
In the request for reconsideration, the tenant contended that the
inspector did not conduct a valid inspection. As the inspector was
on leave because of illness, and was not expected to return, a more
complete factual account could not be obtained from the inspector.
Consequently the tenant's request was granted on March 17, 1992,
specifically noting that nothing in the order granting reconsidera-
tion should be construed as a finding that the inspector had acted
improperly in any way.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the Administrator's order of February 25, 1992, upholding the rent
restoration should be affirmed.
A review of related and contemporaneous proceedings involving the
same tenant reveals adequate substantiation for the restoration
order appealed herein. In another inspection of the tenant's
apartment on February 13, 1991 in regard to other proceedings
(CG 110042-S, DI 110048-S, EH 110044-NC) two other inspectors than
the one which the tenant complained about in the reconsideration
request found the apartment to have been painted in a workmanlike
Moreover, the same inspector visited the apartment on the same day
(June 12, 1991) for another rent restoration proceeding (FC 110164-
OR). His report for that proceeding stated that the blinds in the
bedroom, living room and bedroom were not defective, the new door
had been painted, and there was no evidence of cracks, water
stains, leak damage or peeling paint and plaster throughout the
apartment. Based on that report, the owner's application to
restore the rent that had been reduced in the order issued in
Docket No. CG 110042-S was granted. The tenant did not file a
petition for administrative review of that order.
There is therefore sufficient independent evidence to sustain the
finding in the order appealed herein that all services for which
the rent was reduced have been restored even if circumstances
surrounding the June 12, 1991 inspection cannot be fully investi-
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabili-
zation Law and Code, it is,
ORDERED, that the Commissioner's order denying the tenant's
petition for administrative review and upholding the Adminis-
trator's rent restoration order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner