STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
Mool Raj Sharma,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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