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

          ----------------------------------x     SJR 6673 MANDAMUS

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  GF130160RT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: FI130063OR

               On June 15, 1992 the above named petitioner-tenant 
          representative filed a Petition for Administrative Review against 
          an order of the Rent Administrator issued May 26, 1992. The order 
          concerned various housing accommodations located at 40-66 Ithaca 
          Street, Elmhurst, N.Y.  The Administrator issued an order restoring 
          the rent of the tenants based on a finding that certain building- 
          wide services had been restored.  The DHCR has been ordered by the 
          Supreme Court, Queens County to issue a determination of this 
          administrative appeal no later than April 5, 1993.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 

               The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an Application 
          for Rent Restoration on August 12, 1991 stating that  services for 
          which a rent reduction order had been issued by the Administrator 
          (Docket No. DK130083B) had been restored.

               The tenants were served with a copy of the application and 
          afforded an opportunity to respond. The tenants association filed 
          a response on October 9, 1991 and, in sum, stated that services had 
          not been restored.  Two individual tenants filed responses to the 
          same effect.
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  Inspections were conducted on April 2 and 3, 1992 and 
          revealed that the elevator was functioning properly and that there 
          is no evidence of garbage accumulation in the basement.  The 
          Commissioner notes that these two conditions formed the sole basis 
          for the rent reduction ordered by the Administrator.


               The Administrator issued the order here under review on May 
          26, 1992.  The rents of rent controlled tenants were ordered 
          restored by $9.00 per month effective June 1, 1992.  The rents of 
          rent stabilized tenants were ordered restored effective November 1, 

               On appeal the tenant representative states that the laundry 
          room has not been accessible to tenants and that this point was 
          overlooked by the Administrator.  The representative also states 
          that the elevator was fixed in April, 1992 and that the effective 
          date for rent restoration should have been April 1, 1992. 

               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The argument relating to access to the laundry room has no 
          relevance to the order here under review.  This rent restoration 
          order dealt solely and properly with the issues of the basement and 
          the elevators.  The tenants' statements regarding the 
          Administrator's alleged failure to address the laundry room issue 
          constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the rent 
          reduction order.  Since the tenants did not appeal said order they 
          cannot raise issues regarding access to the laundry room in this 
          rent restoration proceeding.  The tenants may file a new complaint 
          regarding access to the laundry room if the facts so warrant.

               With regard to the issue of the effective date of rent 
          restoration ordered by the Administrator, the Commissioner notes 
          that it is the policy of the DHCR to order rent restoration for 
          rent stabilized tenants effective the first rent payment date 
          following service of the application on the tenants.  For rent 
          controlled tenants, the proper effective date is the first rent 
          payment date following issuance of the order restoring rent.  The 
          Commissioner finds that the Administrator correctly stated the 
          effective date of rent restoration for the rent regulated tenants 
          of the subject building,  The order here under review is affirmed.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and 
          Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City it is 

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


          hereby is, affirmed.


                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             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