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.: HB630150RO
DOCKET NO.: GI630162OR
2690 Webb Associates,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 1, 1993, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on February
5, 1993, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodations known as 2690 Webb Avenue, Bronx, N.Y. various
apartments, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's
application for rent restoration, based upon an inspection of the
premises, on January 4, 1993, which disclosed that "The first floor
hallway ceiling is water stained near the south wall opposite
apartment 1-F." The appealed order also noted that the other
conditions cited in the rent reduction order (April 9, 1987) were
found to be corrected in prior order ZGB-630045OR issued on August
12, 1992, which partially restored rent.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issue 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 service was not fully restored.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, among other things,
that the Rent Administrator erred by denying its application
because the rent reduction order of April 9, 1987 and the appealed
order refer to different service deficiencies; that the water
staining referred to below was caused by the negligence of the
tenant occupying apartment 2-F and that all service deficiencies
noted in the rent reduction order were corrected.
The petition was served on the tenants on March 18, 1993.
The tenants did not answer the petition.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The subject (or second) application for rent restoration was
filed by the owner on September 29, 1992, alleging that all
services which were the subject of the rent reduction order issued
on April 9, 1987, under docket Number ZAE630037B were restored.
The only condition found to be not restored in the first
application for rent restoration was the leak damage and water
stains on the first floor hallway ceiling and this is the subject
of inquiry in the instant proceeding.
A DHCR inspection conducted on January 4, 1993, revealed that
the owner had not corrected the damage and water stains on the
first floor hallway ceiling.
In support of the petition, the owner submitted two repair
invoices dated July 28, 1992 and February 24, 1993.
The Commissioner finds, however, that the alleged repair made
on February 24, 1993 is not material given the fact that the repair
was made after the issuance of the appealed order and the repair
allegedly made on July 28, 1992 was belied by the inspector's
findings made on January 4, 1993; nearly five months after the
ceiling service was allegedly restored.
The Commissioner finds no merit to the owner's argument on
appeal that the ceiling deficiency referred to in the Rent
Administrator's reduction order and in the first restoration order
were different. They were not different and the wording of the
reduction order of April 9, 1987 and the first restoration order of
August 12, 1992 were essentially the same as they pertain to the
water damage and staining in the public hallways.
Additionally, the owner has failed to adduce any credible
evidence that the water damage and staining was caused by the
negligence of any tenant.
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 4, 1993,
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 provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations for New York and Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately
reapply for a rent restoration.
Joseph A. D'Agosta