STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NOS.:
Bucknell Realty Company,
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING, IN PART, PETITIONS
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed timely petitions for administrative
review of orders concerning the housing accommodations known as 44-
35 Colden Street, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Rent
Administrator determined the owner's application to restore rent
previously reduced per Docket No. DG110315S.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the records and
has carefully considered those portions of the records relevant to
the issues raised by the petitions.
The tenant initially commenced these proceedings by filing a
complaint alleging various defects in the windows throughout the
apartment including a complaint that the windows were difficult to
open and close.
The Rent Administrator granted a rent reduction (DG110315S) based
on inspection reports that indicated, among other things, that the
living room windows did not have handles. The inspector's report
had not made clear whether the handles were missing or whether they
were needed to maneuver the window sashes.
The Rent Administrator denied the owner's initial rent restoration
application (EJ110052OR) on the grounds that the living room
windows were missing handles, notwithstanding that the inspector's
report noted that there was no evidence of handles ever being
present or installed on the living room windows. However, the
owner had represented in the application that all repairs for which
the rent reduction order was issued had been completed, including
the installation of handles for the living room windows.
The owner sought reconsideration of denial of the application
(EJ110052OR) and at the same time filed a new rent restoration
The Rent Administrator issued an order on reconsideration
(FK110022RK) that modified the previous denial of the application
(EJ110052OR) to reflect that the living room windows were difficult
to open and close, but did not restore the rent.
The owner did not seek administrative appeal of the rent reduction
order (DG110315S), the initial denial of rent restoration
(EJ110052OR) or the reconsideration order thereof (FK110022RK).
Therefore, each of these determinations was rendered final.
Although new rent restoration proceedings were pending
(FJ110047OR), the owner sought to modify the reconsideration order
(FK110022RK) by filing yet another rent restoration application
On May 15, 1992, the Rent Administrator issued an order granting
the owner's rent restoration application (FJ110047OR) effective
November 1, 1991, based on the tenant's signed written statement
dated April 26, 1992 that handles had been installed on the living
room windows. The owner filed a petition for administrative review
seeking modification of the order, as more fully set forth below.
In its petition for administrative review (GF110061RO) appealing
the May 15, 1992 order (FJ110047OR), the owner argues that the rent
restoration order should not state handles on the living room
windows to be a service, and that the owner was entitled to have
the rent restored effective September 1, 1989, the effective date
of the underlying rent reduction order, based on the fact that the
Rent Administrator's March 12, 1992 order under FK110022RK
acknowledged that handles in the living room windows should not
have been a basis for a rent reduction.
On July 27, 1993, the Rent Administrator issued an order that also
granted the owner's remaining rent restoration application
(GD110015OR) effective June 1, 1992, based on the tenant's signed
statement dated July 12, 1993 that all living room windows were
working properly and the windows had locks. The owner filed a
petition for administrative review seeking modification of the
order, also more fully set forth below.
In its petition for administrative review (HH110092RO) of the July
27, 1993 order (GD110015OR), the owner argues that the rent
restoration date therein should have conformed to the November 1,
1991 effective date set forth on the May 15, 1992 order
(FJ110047OR). The owner also pointed out that window locks had not
been an issue or a service problem since the July 24, 1991 order
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the owner's petitions should be granted in part.
The owner's failure to seek administrative review of the Rent
Administrator's order per Docket Nos. DG110315S, EJ110052OR and
FK110022RK rendered those determinations final and they can no
longer be appealed.
The owner's request under PAR Docket No. GF110061RO to modify the
effective rent restoration date set forth in the order under Docket
No. FJ110047OR, from November 1, 1991 to September 1, 1989
constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the Rent
Administrator's prior final orders that were not appealed. The
owner is correct, however, that the service the tenant is entitled
to is operable windows.
The owner's petition (HH110092RO) appealing the Rent
Administrator's July 27, 1993 order (GD110015OR) properly points
out that the determination should have taken notice of the prior
order (FJ110047OR), wherein the rent was restored effective
November 1, 1991. To the extent that the rent was previously
restored per Docket No. FJ110047OR, the issue of the effective date
of the rent restoration was moot and should not have been
considered; it is hereby deleted from the Rent Administrator's July
27, 1993 order (GD110015OR). To the extent that the order
(GD110015OR) reflects that services were restored, the order is
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are granted,
in part, and that the Rent Administrator's orders (FJ110047OR;
GD110015OR) be, and the same hereby are, affirmed, as modified in
accordance with the above.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA