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.: FL420289RO
28th Street Investors Co.,
DOCKET NO.: FD420189OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 24, 1991, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on November
25, 1991 by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 137-139 East 28 Street, Apt. 6A, New York,
New York, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's application
to restore rent.
Subsequent thereto, the owner proceeded to Court deeming its
petition denied. The court remitted the matter to the agency with
a directive to render a determination on the PAR within 90 days of
February 16, 1994.
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 by the owner of an
application to restore rent dated April 15, 1991. The application
sought to restore a $4.50 rent reduction that had been ordered in
Docket No. CK420403S. Although this rent reduction was revoked by
a Commissioner's order (Docket No. ED420139RO) a duplicate rent
reduction remained in effect and this restoration proceeding is
deemed to be an application to restore that rent reduction.
An inspection conducted by DHCR staff inspector on October 7, 1991
found that the bathroom wall tiles had been improperly grouted.
This resulted in the Administrator's order of November 25, 1991
denying the owner's application on the basis that the tile repairs
In the PAR, the owner states that inasmuch as the defect in the
bathroom wall tiles was concededly corrected, the unworkmanlike
finding for missing grouting is de minimis and should not warrant
the refusal to restore rent. In addition, the owner states that it
should have been given an opportunity to cure the defect before the
application was denied.
After careful consideration of the issues raised in the owner's
petition, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition
should be denied.
The report of inspection dated October 7, 1991, by an employee of
the Division who is not a party to the proceeding, was properly
placed in the record for consideration by the Administrator. The
Commissioner finds that it was proper for the Administrator to rely
on the report of inspection in determining that the repairs had not
been completed in a workmanlike manner.
Policy Statement 90-2 issued February 21, 1990 states the
Division's policy with respect to rent restoration. When the
condition has not been corrected in a workmanlike manner, the rent
shall not be restored until all such work has been completed.
Lastly, due process neither requires that the owner be given notice
of the results of inspection nor an opportunity to cure before an
order is issued.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent Law, and the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA