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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NO.:
I. ROSSI, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER PREMISES: Apartment 16-D
----------------------------------x 325 E. 57th St., N.Y., NY
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING TO THE RENT ADMINISTRATOR
On July 2, 1991, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a Peti-
tion for Administrative review against an order issued on June
27, 1991, by a Rent Administrator concerning the rent-controlled
housing accommodations relating to the above-referenced docket
The Commissioner has reviewed all of evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion relevant to the issue
raised by the petition.
The owner commenced the instant proceeding by filing an applica-
tion for the restoration of rent based upon the restoration of
services. A rent reduction had been imposed as directed by
Administrative Order No. L 003052-S.
The tenant's answer to the application included an objection to
the claim that the leaks in the ceiling of the master bedroom had
been repaired. Additionally, the answer acknowledged that the
apartment doorbell had been repaired, but disputed the claims
regarding the sink stopper and dining room outlet. Thereafte,r
on June 7, 1991, an inspection of the subject apartment was con-
ducted by a Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)
inspector who reported no evidence of leaks in the master bed-
room, but otherwise agreed with the tenant's answer.
In his order the Rent Administrator determined that the doorbell
and the ceiling in the master bedroom had been repaired, and
restored the rental amounts that had been reduced for those
In its petition the tenant disputes the conclusion that the leaks
had been repaired, and encloses an inspection report from the
DHCR's Enforcement Bureau detailing an inspection conducted on
June 3, 1991, wherein it is reported that there is still evidence
of leaks from the master bedroom ceiling.
The owner has not responded to the tenant's petition.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the proceeding be remanded to the Rent Administrator for
The tenant's petition disputes the finding of the inspection
report in this proceeding that the leaks from the master bedroom
ceiling had been repaired because of the contrary finding of an
inspection conducted only four days before by the enforcement
unit of the DHCR. Insofar as both inspections appear to have
been conducted in accordance with established procedures, but led
to different results, they must be considered as inconclusive.
Therefore, the proceeding is being remanded to the Rent
Administrator for further investigation, which may include a
third inspection, if required.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, it is,
ORDERED, that the proceeding be remand d to the Rent Adminis-
trator in accordance with this order and opinion. The order of
the Rent Administrator remains in full force and effect until a
new order is issued upon remand.