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.: FA630466RT
HERBERT L.SACHS, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
TENANT REPRESENTATIVE NO.: DK630114OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 8, 1991 the above named petitioner-tenant
representative timely refiled a Petition for Administrative Review
against an order of the Rent Administrator issued October 9, 1990.
The order concerned various housing accommodations located at 2121
Paulding Ave., Bronx, N.Y. The Administrator granted the owner's
rent restoration application.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The owner commenced this proceeding on November 3, 1989 by
filing a rent restoration application wherein it stated that it had
restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing Docket
No. BB630022B had been issued.
The tenants were served with copies of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. Various tenants filed responses
wherein they stated, in sum, that the owner had not fully restored
services and, therefore, that the application should be denied.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspection was conducted on July 18, 1990 and
revealed the following:
1. Four vents servicing apartment bathrooms and halls
are operating properly,
2. Entrance of building is clean,
3. Landscaping being maintained,
4. Four swings are replaced.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
October 9, 1990 and granted the application based on the report of
the DHCR inspector. The Administrator noted in each order that the
agency rent records were unclear as to whether the apartments were
rent stabilized or rent controlled.
On appeal the authorized tenant representative states that the
owner has not restored services and that another inspection should
be conducted. The petition was served on the owner.
The owner filed a response to the petition on March 1, 1991
and stated, in sum, that the order here under review should be
affirmed based on the report of the DHCR inspector.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the Administrator
correctly ruled that the owner has restored services. The report
of the DHCR inspector, who is neither a party nor an adversary to
the proceeding, clearly states that the owner has complied with the
directive to restore services. The tenants have not set forth any
proof to rebut the inspector's report. The order here under review
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and
Rent and Eviction Regulations 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 is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA