STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: FH210362RT
MOYSEY EPPEL RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: FD210018OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on August 13, 1991 concerning the housing
accommodations known as 2822 Brighton 8th Street, Apartment A10,
New York, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined the
owner's application to restore rent previously reduced on February
7, 1991, per Docket No. EJ210426S. A copy of the petition was
served on the owner.
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.
The owner commenced the proceedings by filing a rent restoration
application asserting that the conditions that furnished the
predicate for the rent reduction had been corrected and warranted
a restoration of the rent.
In an answer, the tenant, in pertinent part, asserted that not all
required repairs had been completed.
An inspection conducted on May 1, 1991 by a DHCR inspector
confirmed that the apartment and building door bells were operative
and that a bathtub stopper had been provided.
The Rent Administrator, therefore, granted the application and
restored the rent effective May 1, 1991.
In the petition, the tenant requests that the Administrator's order
be reversed on the grounds that certain conditions cited in the
complaint of the underlying rent reduction proceedings had not been
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
The only relevant inquiry in rent restoration proceedings is
whether the owner has corrected defective conditions cited in the
underlying rent reduction order and restored the services. Relying
on the report of the DHCR inspector, the Administrator determined
that the services were provided, and that, therefore, a rent
restoration was warranted.
The tenant's request below and on appeal to consider conditions
alleged in the complaint but not contained in the rent reduction
order are more properly the subject of a tenant challenge to the
rent reduction order. Inasmuch as the time for a timely challenge
has long passed, the tenant is not entitled to further relief in
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA