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

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.:              
                                                 GE 110282 RO 
                                                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S    
                                                 DOCKET NO.:                 
           STEPHEN GOLLER C/O                    FJ - 110111 OR              
           HAMILTON HALL REALTY CORP                                  

                              PETITIONER      : 


               On May 8, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on April 29, 
          1992, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 37-05 88th Street, Apartment A2, Queens, New 
          York, wherein the Administrator determined the owner's application 
          to restore rent previously reduced by an order issued on June 6, 
          1991 per Docket No. BF 110136 S.

               The Rent Administrator denied the owner's application to 
          restore rent based on the inspection conducted on April 1, 1992 
          that disclosed that the owner had not corrected all of the 
          conditions that gave rise to the rent reduction in that there was 
          evidence of vermin infestation in the apartment.

               In requesting the Deputy Commissioner to reverse the Rent 
          Administrator's order, the owner relies on a letter from the 
          Division's Compliance Bureau dated May 22, 1992 confirming a 
          telephone conversation between the tenant and Division staff member  
          wherein the tenant advised that she did not wish to pursue 
          compliance proceedings against the owner. 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GE 110282 RO

               The owner's characterization of the letter as confirming the 
          tenant's "request to withdraw her complaint" is misleading.  In 
          fact, she simply advised that she did not wish to pursue 
          administrative prosecution of the owner for non-compliance, which 
          could subject the owner to the imposition of fines after a formal 

               It is noted, moreover, that the May 22, 1992 letter made clear 
          that the tenant's decision not to pursue administrative prosecution 
          did not affect her right to a rent reduction until services were 
          restored fully.  The letter specified that:

                    1. Any rent reduction mandated by the Order
                       shall remain in effect as a penalty until
                       the above condition is corrected.

                    2. When the condition is corrected, the owner
                       may file an application for restoration of
                       the rent, but the rent may not be restored
                       until this Agency issues an order granting
                       the owner's application.

                    3. Any rent freeze mandated by the Order shall
                       remain in effect until the Agency issues an
                       Order granting the owner's application for
                       for rent restoration.

               The owner's argument that it is not a guarantor of a roach 
          free apartment and that it satisfies its obligation by providing 
          adequate services ignores the City Housing Maintenance Code 
          requirement that the owner take adequate and, if necessary, 
          continuous eradication measures.

               The owner's allegation on appeal that the condition is tenant 
          induced in that the tenant stores paper and plastic bags under the 
          sink and on top of a cabinet is unsubstantiated and inconsistent 
          with the owner's claim below that the infestation had in fact been 

               The record does reflect that the owner has made good faith 
          effort to exterminate over a period of time, that the exterminator 
          has come to the building on a regular basis and that the tenant has 
          provided access on most occasions.  However, in answer to the 
          owner's application, the tenant observed that the services were  
          ineffective.  This was confirmed by the inspection, which  revealed 
          that there remained evidence of infestation.

               If eradication measures to date have been inadequate, the 
          owner is advised to either increase the instance of or shorten the 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GE 110282 RO

          intervals between periodic extermination service or to explore 
          alternative treatment.  In this respect, the tenant also has an 
          obligation to comply with the owner's or his agent's reasonable 
          requests, including requests to eliminate substances which may 
          afford harborage and keep sealed, where feasible, substances which 
          provide food for vermin. 

               The owner's suggestion that the restoration order and the 
          order below were too vague are similarly rejected. By definition, 
          infestation implies vermin in such numbers so as to be unpleasant 
          and unsafe.  The owner also failed to seek judicial review of an 
          order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated July 8, 1992, per Docket 
          No. FI-110186 RO that denied the owner's administrative appeal to 
          reverse the Administrator's rent reduction order.  The owner's 
          attempt to allege errors therein constitutes an impermissible 
          collateral attack of a final determination.   

               It is noted that Division records reveal an open and pending 
          application to restore rent per Docket No. GI-110140 OR.

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

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


                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting 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