STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: FA130310RO
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: EJ130003OR

               On January 31, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued December 27, 1990. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 120-25 Woodhull Ave., Hollis, 
          N.Y.  The Administrator denied the owner's application for rent 

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 

               The owner commenced this proceeding on October 9, 1990 by 
          filing a rent restoration application wherein it alleged that it 
          had restored all services for which a rent reduction order bearing 
          Docket No. BG130036B had been issued.

               The tenants were served with a copy of the application and 
          afforded an opportunity to respond. Two tenants filed responses to 
          the application, however, the responses were irrelevant to the 
          issue of whether the owner had in fact restored services.
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspection was conducted on November 21, 1990 and 
          revealed evidence of holes in hallway and stairwell walls, evidence 
          of discolored and peeling paint in both areas and evidence of 
          missing glass in the elevator door.  The inspector also reported 
          that there was no evidence of missing glass  in the elevator 
          entrance door on all floors and no evidence of cracked or broken 
          glass on the building entrance door.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          December 27, 1990 and denied the application based on the report of 


          the inspector.

               On appeal the owner, as represented by counsel, states that 
          the DHCR had notified it that it had complied with the directive to 
          restore services, that the agency further informed it that a DHCR 
          compliance proceeding was being closed, and that the tenants have 
          stated that the owner has restored the services in question.  The 
          owner attached a copy of a letter from an employee of the DHCR 
          Compliance Unit wherein the employee states that a compliance 
          proceeding involving the subject building was being closed.

               Various tenants filed responses to the petition and stated, in 
          sum, that the owner had failed to restore services.  One tenant 
          filed a response and stated that the owner had made repairs in 
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The owner's petition does not establish that the 
          Administrator's order denying rent restoration was incorrect.  The 
          letter from the DHCR compliance unit employee clearly informed the 
          owner of the requirement to file for rent restoration and 
          specifically stated that the rents would not be restored until 
          after the issuance of an Administrator's order.  The compliance 
          proceeding was closed without an inspection based on a telephone 
          conversation with one tenant and is therefore not determinative of 
          whether the conditions cited in the rent reduction order were 
          repaired.  Of greater relevance is the results of the physical 
          inspection of the building conducted in conjunction with the 
          restoration proceeding.  This inspection, carried out by a DHCR 
          employee who is neither a party nor an adversary to the proceeding, 
          revealed that most of the defective conditions had not been 

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it 
               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed.


                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Deputy Commissioner

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name