Google Search TenantNet Web


DHCR Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) Decisions

In 1994, under pressure from tenant advocates, DHCR released approximately 6,000 PAR decisions. After Governor Pataki took office in 1995, DHCR refused to release other decisions in bulk. These decisions generally cover the 1990-1994 period and in many cases do not reflect current law or DHCR practice. The reader is cautioned to be aware of changes to the Rent Stabilization Law, the Rent Stabilization Code and DHCR practice since 1994. Also this database does not include all decisions prior to 1994 as DHCR intentionally withheld many decisions for unknown reasons.

Accessing the decisions

Search DHCR decisions by keyword

 

Note: Search must contain at least four characters.

    Contains all words
    Contains the exact phrase
    Contains at least one word
   or ... Browse decisions by docket number
   or ... Download compressed zip files of all decisions

DHCR Decisions





          GB130199RO
                                    STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433



          ----------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  GB130199RO
                 ARJAN MIRCHANDANI,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NOS.:   
                                   PETITIONER     FG130165OR 
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On February 20, 1992, the above-named petitioner owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on 
          January 16, 1992, by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, 
          Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as  
          94-06 34th Road, Queens, New York, wherein the Administrator deter- 
          mined the owner's application to restore rent predicated on a 
          restoration of service.

          The challenged order denied rent restoration to rent stabilized 
          tenants based on the results of inspections conducted on December 
          13 and 16, 1991 and January 6, 1992 that found the bell/buzzer and 
          intercom systems to be defective.  The Administrator granted the 
          owner partial rent restoration to rent controlled tenants for other 
          services found to have been restored, and advised the owner to 
          refile for the remaining items.

          On appeal, the owner requests that the bell/buzzer intercom issue 
          be reconsidered, and that the balance of the rent reductions be 
          restored.  The owner asserts that a new intercom system has been 
          installed and will produce proof upon request.  

          The Administrator's determination was correct.  

          The owner has not indicated, either below or on appeal, when the 
          new intercom system was installed, or whether the intercom system 
          found to be defective on inspection was the existing equipment or 
          the new system recently installed.  If the equipment found to be 
          defective was the new equipment installed to restore or upgrade 
          services, the Administrator's determination was correct and rent 
          abatements were warranted.  The owner remained responsible to 
          insure that new equipment operates properly.












          GB130199RO



          If the installation of the new intercom system occurred after the 
          inspection, the determination was also correct, as the record 
          presented does not show that the owner advised the Rent Adminis- 
          trator of the measures taken to resolve intercom system problems by 
          removing the existing equipment.

          The owner's offer to produce proof of the installation upon request 
          is inadequate to warrant a different result.  An administrative 
          appeal is strictly limited to a review of the issues and evidence 
          before the Administrator, and not to consider new claims.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations for 
          New York City, the City Rent Control Law, and the Rent Stabiliza- 
          tion Law and Code, it is,

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and 
          that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed.


          ISSUED:




                                                                           
                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                Deputy Commissioner

    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information | Contact Us
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws |

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name