GB520311RO, et al.


                                    STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433




          ----------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:                 
          GB520311RO;
                                                  GB420310RO;
                 MATILDA & MIKLOS KISS,           GB530295RO
                              
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONERS     FF430299OR          
          ----------------------------------x



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          


          On February 25, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner filed three 
          petitions for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          February 12, 1992, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the 
          housing accommodation known as 503 West 169th Street, New York, New 
          York, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's application for 
          rent restoration.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues raised by the administrative appeal.

          This proceeding began with the filing of a restoration application 
          by the owner on May 30, 1991 alleging that the entrance door, which 
          had been the subject of a rent reduction order (CF530053B), had 
          been repaired.  Other conditions cited in the rent reduction order 
          were found in earlier rent restoration proceedings to have been 
          corrected. 

          A physical inspection by the Division on January 21, 1992 revealed 
          that the building entrance door jamb was loose, the steel frames 
          are out of alignment, the door hinges are rusted and the door check 
          is missing.  Based on this report, the owner's application was 
          denied.













          GB520311RO, et al.




          The owners contend in their PAR that the condition does not exist 
          and that the owners were not present during the inspection as they 
          had requested, that building wide inspections on October 2, 1991, 
          October 9, 1991, November 7, 1991, and November 8, 1991 established 
          no violation on the door, that an inspection conducted by the 
          Division on April 24, 1989 revealed that the door was secure and 
          the rent was restored at that time.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should be 
          denied. 

          The inspection of April 24, 1989 related to a different complaint 
          and condition under a docket number not under review here.  The 
          finding in that docket was that the vestibule door lock was now 
          working and as a result a restoration of the rent in the amount of 
          $5.00 was granted after a reduction of this amount was made by 
          order dated September 17, 1987 under Docket No. BC530113B.  In 
          addition, the owners submit no evidence that the condition which 
          was the subject of the April 24, 1989 inspection, i.e., vestibule 
          door lock, is the same condition cited in the order under appeal, 
          i.e., building entrance door is loose, lacks alignment and a door 
          check.

          The results of the four inspections, which the owners cite as 
          establishing that no violations exist on the front door, were not 
          part of the record before the Administrator and are not included in 
          the PAR.  None of the dates coincide with inspections conducted in 
          connection with the owner's various rent restoration applications 
          and it is not clear who conducted these inspections.  A review of 
          the Division's records do not reveal any such inspections.

          Lastly, the owners' contention that the violation no longer exists 
          is controverted by the results of the Division's inspection con- 
          ducted on January 21, 1992. 


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent Law and the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations, it is,

















          GB520311RO, et al.




          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.


          ISSUED:




                                                                           
                                                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