GI630080RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433





          ------------------------------------x        SJR No.: 7410      
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.:
                                                       GI630080RO
                    Oudhoram Ragoo,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:
                                                       FF630333OR
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative 
          review of an order issued on July 28, 1992 concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 1694 Selwyn Avenue, Bronx, New York, 
          wherein the Rent Administrator denied the owner's application to 
          restore rent previously reduced under Docket No. DL630055B.

          Thereafter, the owner commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court, 
          pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, in the 
          nature of mandamus, seeking expeditious processing of the 
          administrative appeal.

          The Rent Administrator had reduced the tenants' rent under 
          DL630055B based on findings that the "bulkhead area was dirty" and 
          that the "ABC  west entrance door [was] not aligned."

          The owner commenced the proceeding hereinunder review by filing 
          individual rent restoration applications for most, but not all, of 
          the apartment units for which the rent was reduced, asserting that 
          the conditions for which the rent reduction had been granted had 
          been corrected.  No applications were filed for apartments STL 2, 
          STL 4 and 32B.

          Twenty-eight (28) tenants signed the acknowledgement that defects 
          had been corrected.  The number of consenting tenants exceeded the 
          twenty-three tenants originally affected by the order.  Some of the 
          tenants had vacated.  Twenty of the tenants, or their successors, 
          of the apartments originally affected, signed the acknowledgement.  
          Applications were not filed for the three remaining tenants.













          GI630080RO

          In support of the applications for rent restoration, the owner also 
          includes a copy of a report, dated April 27, 1991, prepared by a 
          registered architect at the behest of the owner, setting forth that 
          the entrance doors were repaired and that the public areas were 
          clean.

          Two tenants responded to service of the application.  They stated, 
          in substance, that additional conditions required repairs, but they 
          did not refer to the two services which were the basis for the rent 
          reduction.

          On April 16, 1992, the DHCR conducted an inspection of the subject 
          premises wherein the DHCR inspector found the same defective 
          conditions for which the rent was reduced.

          The Rent Administrator denied the owner's rent restoration 
          application on the grounds that the conditions had not been 
          corrected.

          In the petition, the owner points out that various tenants had 
          acknowledged that the owner had restored services and signed the 
          tenants' statement of consent.  The owner further argues, in 
          substance, that there was insufficient basis for denying rent 
          restoration for conditions that recur due to the tenants' 
          negligence, or the vandalism of unknown individuals, and where, as 
          here, the owner submitted evidence of measures taken to correct the 
          deficiencies.

          The owner also argues that these items fall under the category of 
          maintenance which did not warrant a rent reduction, or at most, 
          assuming the validity of the finding of service reductions, the 
          rent reductions should have been limited only to those tenants 
          directly affected.

          One tenant filed an answer to the owner's petition.  The tenant's 
          answer does not refer to either of the conditions.  Rather, the 
          tenant voices concerns about apartment services.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that the petition should be granted for the apartments for which 
          the applications were filed.  

          By their statements of consent below, the tenants indicated that 
          they did not dispute the owner's contention that the owner 
          corrected the conditions for which the rent was reduced, to the 
          tenants' satisfaction.  The owner reiterates this argument on 
          appeal.

          When a tenant signs a statement of consent, and does not raise 
          questions regarding the restoration of the services for which the 
          rent was reduced, DHCR normally restores the rent without 
          conducting an inspection.  As to the two tenants who filed an 






          GI630080RO

          answer below, they confined their comments to several other 
          services that were allegedly not provided, but they did not 
          otherwise dispute their signed consent acknowledging that the owner 
          had restored the services for which the rent was reduced.  As a 
          result, the owner was not on notice that the conditions may have 
          recurred.

          The DHCR normally grants rent restoration under the circumstances 
          described.  The record does not reveal facts to account for the 
          variance from normal processing.

          In light of the record, the Rent Administrator should have granted 
          the owner's applications to restore rent.  For rent stabilized 
          tenants, the rent is restored effective August 1, 1991, which was 
          the first rent payment date following service of the owner's 
          application on the tenants.  For rent controlled tenants, the rent 
          is restored prospectively effective August 1, 1992.

          The rent reduction order remains in effect for apartments STL 2, 
          STL 4 and 32B.                                                     
                                        
          Any rent arrears due the owner from each tenant as a result of this 
          order shall be paid in equal installments at the amount of each 
          tenant's monthly rent reduction restored herein, until the arrears 
          are eliminated.

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

          ORDERED, that the owner's petition for administrative review be and 
          the same hereby is granted, and that the owner's rent restoration 
          applications be and the same hereby are granted, in accordance with 
          the above.           

                 
          ISSUED:




                                                                     
                                             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