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