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.: GB210106RO
Trump Management Co.
DOCKET NO.: FE210069OR
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on February 3, 1992, concerning the
housing accommodations known as 3310 Nostrand Avenue, Apt. 505,
Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined the
owner's rent restoration application.
The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an application to
restore rent previously reduced under Docket No. CD210213S. The
owner asserted that it had restored all services for which the rent
reduction order was issued and that the tenant consented. The
tenant signed the consent portion of the application. The owner's
previous rent restoration application per Docket No. EH210156OR had
The tenant filed an answer asserting only that the owner had not
complied with that portion of the Rent Administrator's order
directing the owner to reduce the rent.
Thereafter, the DHCR conducted an inspection. The inspector
reported that there was evidence of water stains, falling plaster
and a large hole in the shower stall ceiling, and that there were
dirt stains and spaces between slats on the living room wood floor.
Other services were found to have been restored.
The Rent Administrator denied the owner's rent restoration
application based on the inspector's observations.
In the petition for administrative review the owner argues, in
pertinent part, that the owner's rent restoration application
should have been granted based on the fact that the tenant had
consented to the owner's application to restore rent by signing it,
and that the tenant had acknowledged in prior compliance
proceedings that the repairs had been made.
In an answer, the tenant reiterates that the owner ignored the Rent
Administrator's directive to reduce the tenant's rent and contends
that, in fact, several services are not provided, but does not
otherwise dispute the owner's contention that the tenant had
previously acknowledged that the owner had restored services.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be granted.
The tenant signed the statement of consent on the back of the
owner's application. The tenant's answer did not raise questions
regarding the restoration of services, but only a question of rent
Under the circumstances described above, the DHCR normally restores
the rent without conducting an inspection. The record does not
reveal any facts to account for the variance herein from normal
In light of the record, the Rent Administrator should have granted
the owner's application, and should have restored the rent
effective June 1, 1991, which was the first day of the month
following service of the owner's application on the tenant.
If rent arrears are due the owner from the tenant as a result of
this order, arrears may be offset against refunds or overcharges
due the tenant from the owner from the underlying rent reduction
order. If further arrears remain, they may be paid by the tenant
in equal monthly installments at the amount of the underlying
monthly rent reduction. If, on the other hand, the tenant paid
excess rent it shall be credited to the tenant, in full, commencing
with the rental payment immediately following the issuance of this
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be granted and that the Rent
Administrator's order be amended to restore the legal regulated
rent effective June 1, 1991.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA