Docket Number: FA-220116-RO
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.: FA 220116-RO
DOMINICK BARILLA, DRO DOCKET NO.: ED 220071-OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 11, 1991, the above-named owner filed a timely Petition
for Administrative Review of an order issued on December 17, 1990
concerning t e housing accommodations relating to the above-
described docket number.
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.
On April 6, 1990, the owner commenced this proceeding by filing an
application to retore rent on the basis of restoration of services.
On May 2, 1990, the tenant was mailed the owner's application.
The tenant filed an answer to the owner's application on May 7,
1990, alleging in substance that services had not been restored.
On November 20, 1990, an inspection of the subject housing
accommodation was conducted by a DHCR inspector who confirmed that
services had been partially restored in this rent control apartment.
On December 17, 1990, the Administrator issued an order based on
said inspection finding that the bathroom floor had been repaired.
The order provided that the owner may refile for remaining
restoration of $23.00 after completing the following repairs:
1. mice and roach infestation in the apartment;
2. two livingroom storm windows are in a
poor condition and seep throughout;
3. four master bedroom storm windows do not
4. glass pane is missing from the kitchen
5. refrigerator door and freezer door
gaskets are damaged; and
6. livingroom ceiling has evidence of
peeling paint and plaster.
The Administrator thus found partial restoration in this rent
control apartment and granted the owner's application, restoring
rent in the amount of $3.00 per month effective January 1, 1991.
Docket Number: FA-220116-RO
In this petition, the owner contended in substance that these
"problems" had been "caused by tenant" and that the effective date
of restoration should be March 1, 1990, presumably the date when
repairs were made.
In reply, the tenant stated in substance that services had not yet
been restored and that "it is impossible" he "caused the
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
Firstly, the owner did not raise in the proceeding below and prior
to the issuance of the order that the tenant in any way caused the
disrepair. The Commissioner will therefore not entertain this issue
raised for the first time as an unsubstantiated claim on appeal.
Secondly, rent control regulations specifically provide that "No
order increasing or decreasing a maximum rent previously established
pursuant to these regulations shall be effective prior to the date
on which the order is issued.... Because the order in this case was
issued on December 17, 1990, the Commissioner finds that the
Administrator properly determined January 1, 1991 as the effective
This order is issued without prejudice to the owner's right to file
another application for restoration of the rent, if the facts so
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby