GC610335RO
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
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
GC610335RO
VITO SACCHETTI, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
EC610748S
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 12, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a peti-
tion for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on February
21, 1992, concerning the housing accommodation known as 3150
Roberts Avenue, Apartment 6-K, Bronx, New York, wherein the Admin-
istrator determined that there had been a reduction of services in
the subject apartment and reduced the rent accordingly.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issue raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced by the filing of a complaint dated
March 9, 1990 alleging various service decreases. An inspection of
the apartment conducted by a Division employee on November 20, 1991
confirmed the existence of some of the complained of conditions
resulting in the February 21, 1992 order reducing the rent.
In the PAR, the owner contends that all repairs have been complete
but that there never were any screens in any of the apartments. In
addition the owner attached a statement made by the tenant in
connection with the complaint filed under Docket No. FJ610144S,
advising that the repairs to his apartment have been completed and
that he wishes to withdraw his complaint. While the owner acknowl-
edges that the statement was made in connection with a different
docket, he believes that the statement also applies to the com-
plaint herein.
GC610335RO
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
denied.
A review of the file in Docket No. FJ610144S reveals that the com-
plaint therein related to different conditions than those raised in
this case. That docket, cited by the owner, deals with conditions
which are not repeated in this order. Therefore, the owner's con-
tention that the tenant's complaint herein was withdrawn is without
merit.
Furthermore, agency records in the form of rent control cards
indicate that on November 29, 1965, storm windows with screens were
installed in the apartment, a rent increase was taken, and at that
time the screens became a base date service. The Commissioner,
therefore, rejects the owner's contention that there were never any
screens in any of the apartments.
The tenants have advised that they have vacated the subject apart-
ment. The parties are advised that the rent reduction ordered by
the Administrator and affirmed herein remains in effect for
subsequent tenants and no rent increases may be collected until the
owner applies for and is granted rent restoration.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|