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

          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.:
                    Mool Raj Sharma,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:


          On January 22, 1991, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          December 31, 1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the 
          housing accommodation known as 83-45 Broadway, Elmhurst, N.Y., 
          Apt. 209, wherein the Administrator granted the owner's application 
          for rent restoration based upon a finding that those services which 
          were the subject of the Rent Administrator's reduction order of 
          February 24, 1989, Docket No. CK110497S, had been restored.

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

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly granted 
          the owner's application for rent restoration.

          On May 31, 1990, the owner filed an application for rent 
          restoration, alleging that all services which were the subject of 
          the rent reduction order of February 24, 1989 had been restored.  
          The rent was reduced based on a finding of vermin infestation and 
          defective window locks and sashes.  The owner included with the 
          application a statement signed by the tenant that the exterminator 
          comes every month and new windows had been installed.

          The tenant filed an answer to the application alleging that he 
          still has a noisy refrigerator, the apartment entrance door has not 


          been painted in 14 years, the closet door needs to be repaired, 
          there are cracks in the walls and ceilings, and the tenant has not 
          yet been compensated for a robbery that occurred in 1988.

          A DHCR inspection conducted on December 11, 1990, revealed that 
          there was no evidence of vermin infestation, defective window locks 
          or defective window sashes throughout the apartment.

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenant submitted a copy of his answer to 
          the rent restoration application and asserted, that the conditions 
          cited in that answer have still not been corrected.

          The petition was served on the owner on February 12, 1991.

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

          The owner, on proof of restoration of those services which were the 
          subject of the Rent Administrator's reduction order is, by law, 
          entitled to an order of rent restoration.

          The record clearly shows that the Rent Administrator in granting 
          the owner's restoration application, based his findings on the 
          results of an inspection held by the Division of Housing and 
          Community Renewal on December 11, 1990, which revealed that the 
          owner was maintaining those services specified in the 
          Administrator's rent reduction order of February 24, 1989.

          The conditions described by the tenant in answer to the owner's 
          application and again on appeal were not the subject of the rent 
          reduction order.  The Division records show that the tenant failed 
          to file a PAR of the rent reduction order issued under Docket No. 
          CK110497S.  As a result, the petitioner's apparent claim that other 
          services should have been included in the rent reduction order is 
          not appropriate for consideration in the instant proceeding.

          The Commissioner, therefore, deems it appropriate to rely on the 
          results of the Division's inspection and finds that the petitioner 
          failed to adduce convincing evidence that the inspector's findings 
          were erroneous in any way.

          This order is issued without prejudice to the tenant's continuing 
          right to file an appropriate application alleging a decrease in 
          services, if the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization 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.


                                             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