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.:
BEE and BEE MANAGEMENT CORP.,
PETITIONER EJ 620040-OR
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING THE PROCEEDING
TO THE RENT ADMINISTRATOR
On July 5, 1991, the above-named owner filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on June 3, 1991, by a
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation known as
Apartment 5-E, 2308 University Avenue, Bronx, New York, wherein
the owner's application to restore the rent 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 September 27, 1990 the subject owner filed an application for
a rent restoration based on its alleged restoration of service.
The application included the tenant's signed consent dated August
On November 5, 1990, the tenant interposed an answer to the
owner's application wherein it was alleged that the areas of
water damaged walls and ceilings had been repainted but that the
tenant was as yet unable to determine whether the leak which
caused the damage had been repaired. She further stated that
she was not afforded the opportunity to read the form which she
On February 21, 1991 a physical inspection of the subject apart-
ment was carried out by the Division of Housing and Community
Renewal (DHCR). The inspector, in his report, noted that there
was evidence of water stains on the kitchen wall and that the
bathroom walls and ceiling were repaired in an unworkmanlike
On June 3, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review, finding that no restoration of services had
occurred and denying the owner's application.
In its petition for administrative review the owner requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order alleging that repairs
had been effectuated prior to the inspection and that the tenant
had consented to the rent restoration.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this proceeding should be remanded to the Rent
The Commissioner notes that the tenant's November 5, 1990 answer
in opposition to the owner's rent restoration application
effectively revoked the consent which was signed on August 30,
1990. However, the Commissioner notes that a copy of this answer
was not served on the owner. This failure deprived the owner of
notice that problems still existed or had recurred and deprived
it of the opportunity to-inspect the apartment or to effectuate
According, the Commissioner finds that the owner was denied due
process in the proceeding under review and that this proceeding
should be remanded to the Rent Administrator for furth r proces-
sing of the rent restoration application.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is,
ORDERED, that this proceeding be, and the same hereby is,
remanded to the Rent Administrator for further processing in
accordance with this order and opinion.