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

          ----------------------------------x     S.J.R. NO.:  6887
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                 REFLUX REALTY INC.,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     FD430265OR


          On July 24, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review of an order issued on May 22, 1992, by 
          the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations known 
          as 72 Carmine Street, New York, NY, various apartments, wherein the 
          Administrator denied the owner's application for rent restoration, 
          based upon inspections of the premises on October 31, 1991 and 
          November 1, 1991, which disclosed that although many services were 
          restored; several were not.  The last inspection revealed that the 
          garden wall was defective; that the brick-work throughout the 
          building and in the rear of the carriage-house was in need of 
          repairs and that there was no superintendent in the building.

          Subsequent thereto, this petitioner filed a petition in the Supreme 
          Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice law and Rules to 
          deem its petition for administrative review denied.  The proceeding 
          was remitted to the Division for a determination within sixty (60) 
          days of May 13, 1993.

          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.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly denied 
          the owner's application for rent restoration based upon a finding 
          that the owner failed to correct those conditions shown by the 
          inspection of November 1, 1991.  The order also stated that the 
          owner had failed to submit substantial proof in response to a 
          notice dated January 10, 1992, affording a second opportunity to 
          correct the conditions reported by the inspector.


          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in substance, that it did 
          respond to the January 10, 1992 notice and enclosed a copy of that 
          response which included an "affidavit" dated December 2, 1991 by a 
          contractor retained by the owner to make repairs to the roof of the 
          subject premises.  The owner also submitted a letter dated June 22, 
          1992, by a contractor who made repairs to the brickwork and garden 
          walls, a statement dated June 19, 1992 by a person who says he is 
          the superintendent of the building and lives across the street, a 
          letter from a tenant dated June 1, 1992, saying that all necessary 
          repairs have been done, and a copy of a restoration order Docket 
          No. FD410242OR, dated January 13, 1992, which the owner claims 
          establishes the completion of repairs.

          The petition was served on the tenants on July 6, 1992.  The 
          tenants' did not answer the petition.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          The record reveals that the owner submitted a statement and 
          affirmation in support of its application for a rent restoration, 
          on April 25, 1991, essentially alleging that all repairs which were 
          the subject of the Rent Administrator's rent reduction order had 
          been corrected.  To buttress its argument, the owner submitted 
          various paid invoices from a number of contractors evidencing work 
          done in the subject building.

          Amongst the evidence submitted below in support of the owner's 
          application was a paid invoice from the Vinmetal Inc., dated 
          February 4, 1991, which indicated that brick work pointing and 
          cementing on the carriage-house and garden walls and other 
          requisite repairs were completed and paid for by the owner on 
          February 28, 1991.

          The last inspection of November 1, 1991, however, showed that there 
          was a defective garden wall, that the brickwork throughout the 
          entire building and rear of carriage house is in need of repairs, 
          and that there was no superintendent in the building.

          On appeal, the owner submitted a copy of what purports to be its 
          answer, dated January 17, 1992, to the above DHCR notice, but the 
          record below is devoid of any such answer.


          Moreover, the Commissioner notes that the statement executed by 
          Jacob Singer Sons, Inc. on December 2, 1991, (included with the 
          answer) did not address the service deficiencies specified in the 
          inspection report and was not a sworn affidavit as claimed by the 
          owner on appeal.  Therefore, the Commissioner finds that this 
          statement even if it were before the Administrator would be 
          accorded little probative value.

          The Commissioner has also considered the owner's claim that the 
          rent was previously restored by the Rent Administrator for the same 
          service deficiencies shown in the inspector's report of November 4, 
          1991 and rejects this argument.  The restoration order issued on 
          January 13, 1992, under Docket No. FD410242OR, concerned repairs to 
          the roof which was not the subject of the instant proceeding.

          The other evidence submitted with the petition regarding repairs to 
          the brickwork and garden wall and the employment of a superin- 
          tendent was not submitted to the Administrator and is beyond the 
          scope of review of this administrative appeal.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly 
          based his determination on the entire record, including the results 
          of the on-site inspections conducted on October 31, 1991 and 
          November 1, 1991 and that the Rent Administrator properly denied 
          the owner's application to restore the rent upon determining that 
          the owner had failed to restore all services.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabili- 
          zation Law and Code, it is,

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

          Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately reapply for 
          a rent restoration.


                                                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