STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 23, 1992, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
March 3, 1992, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 108 West 83rd Street, New York, New York,
apartment 34, wherein the Administrator determined that the
tenant's application for a reduction of rent based upon decrease
services should be denied and the proceeding terminated because the
evidence indicated that the complaining tenant had vacated the
subject apartment and the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR) was unable to obtain information necessary to process the
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 termi-
nated the proceeding below.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant alleged that the owner was not
maintaining the bathroom sink, toilet, shower and tiles.
The petition was served on the owner on April 8, 1992.
The owner answered the petition alleging that repairs could not be
completed because the petitioner vacated the subject apartment.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The tenant filed a complaint on March 20, 1990 based upon the
owner's failure to provide services. The owner was afforded an
opportunity to respond by service of the complaint on April 27,
1990. The owner filed an answer on May 7, 1990 alleging; in
pertinent part, that some of the repairs were corrected and that
the balance could not be corrected because of the tenant's failure
to provide access.
DHCR inspection appointments were respectively scheduled for
December 27, 1991 and January 24, 1992, but the DHCR investigation
of the tenant's complaint could not be completed because of the
tenant's voluntary and permanent removal from the subject
The inspector's report of January 24, 1992 noted that the tenant
moved and thus failed to keep two appointments.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator
properly terminated the proceedings below.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabiliza-
tion 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