STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.:
                    RICHARD ALBERT,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:


          On March 13, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          February 11, 1992, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the 
          housing accommodation known as 94-05 222nd Street, Apartment 6-F, 
          Queens Village, New York, wherein the Administrator denied the 
          owner's application for rent restoration based upon an inspection 
          of the premises on January 8, 1992, which disclosed that:

           1.  Full size window screens have not been replaced in the 
               living room, kitchen and master bedroom.

           2.  There is evidence of a hole in the bathroom window 

          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues raised by the administrative appeal.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly denied 
          the owner's application for rent restoration based upon a finding 
          that services were not fully restored.

          On June 10, 1991, the owner filed an application for rent restora- 
          tion alleging that all services specified in the rent reduction 
          order of April 12, 1991, under Docket No. DK110736S, were restored. 


          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          the rent reduction order and the denial of the rent restoration 
          application were based on service conditions not mentioned in the 
          tenant's complaint; that the order states "full-sized" screens 
          while the rent reduction order only states screens; that the tenant 
          denied access to his maintenance workers and that the Rent 
          Administrator failed to conduct a hearing in the rent reduction 
          proceeding under Docket No. DK110736S.

          The petition was served on the tenant on March 31, 1992 and on 
          April 15, 1992, the tenant filed an answer to the petition stating 
          that the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspec- 
          tion held on January 8, 1992, supported the Rent Administrator's 
          finding that the owner failed to restore services.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

          The owner, on proof of restoration of those services which were the 
          subject of the Rent Administrator's rent reduction order is, by 
          law, entitled to an order of rent restoration.

          However, in a PAR against an order denying the owner's application 
          for rent restoration, an owner cannot challenge the reason for the 
          original reduction in rent.  The owner is required to file a Peti- 
          tion for Administrative Review (PAR) against the rent reduction 

          The Commissioner, therefore, finds that the issues raised in the 
          PAR constitute an impermissible collateral attack against the rent 
          reduction order of April 12, 1991.

          The evidence of record indicates that the screens which had been 
          provided as a base date service were full sized screens.  The owner 
          is required to provide those services which were provided on the 
          base date.  The reference to "full sized" screens in the order 
          appealed herein is therefore warranted and does not impose an 
          additional requirement.

          A DHCR inspection held on January 8, 1992, showed that the owner 
          failed to restore all of those services specified in the rent 
          reduction order of April 12, 1991.

          The remaining allegations in the owner's appeal are without merit.


          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly 
          based his determination on the entire record, including the results 
          of the on-site inspection conducted on January 8, 1992, and that 
          the Rent Administrator properly denied the owner's application to 
          restore the rent upon determining that the owner had failed to 
          fully restore services.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is 

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


                                                       LULA M. ANDERSON   
                                                       Deputy Commissioner


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

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name