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.:
H. MOSKOWITZ/I. SONNENSCHEIN
c/o THE ARGO CORPORATION RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER FA 420081-OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 12, 1991, the above-named owner filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on June 25, 1991, by a
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation known as
Apartment 15-E, 875 West End Avenue, New York, New York, wherein
the owner's rent restoration application was denied.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues
raised by the petition for review.
On January 4, 1991 the subject owner filed an application for a
rent restoration based on its alleged restoration of services.
On April 10, 1991 a physical inspection of the subject apartment
was carried out by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR). The inspector, in his report, noted that the complained
of conditions were not adequately corrected and that the repair
work was defective.
On June 25, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review, finding that the attempted repairs we e unworkman-
like and denying the owner's application.
In its petition for administrative review the owner requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order alleging that the
apartment was plastered and painted complete on October 26, 1990
and attaches an invoice and cancelled check in substantiation of
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes notwithstanding the allegations contained
in the owner's petition, that the tenant's apartment was in-
spected on April 10, 1991 and was found to have peeling paint
and plaster throughout the apartment. The DHCR inspector noted
"work was done, however, defective ..." Various areas of
defective work were cited and enumerated in the Rent
The Commissioner notes that while the owner questio s the find-
ings of fact the record clearly reflects those findings by virtue
of DHCR inspection which occurred on April 10, 1991.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator
properly determined that the owner had failed to restore ser-
vices based on the evidence of the record, including the results
of a physical inspection of the subject premises, and correctly
denied the owner's application upon determining that the
attempted repairs were unworkmanlike.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's
rights as they may pertain to a de novo application to the Divi-
sion for a restoration of rent based upon the restoration of
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent & Eviction Regulations for
New York City, it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA