HI110225RO

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


          ----------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: HI110225RO
                                                  
          RICHARD ALBERT                          RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: GJ110144OR
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On September 27, 1993 the above named petitioner-owner timely 
          refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of 
          the Rent Administrator issued July 13, 1993. The order concerned 
          housing accommodations known as Apt. 3R located at 93-47 222nd 
          Street, Queens Village, N.Y.  The Administrator denied the owner's 
          rent restoration application.  

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

               The owner commenced this proceeding on October 21, 1992 by 
          filing a rent restoration application wherein he alleged, in sum, 
          that he had restored services for which a rent reduction order 
          bearing Docket No. GB110556S had been issued.  The Commissioner 
          notes that the rent was ordered reduced based on findings of 
          leaking kitchen faucet and inadequate refrigerator and freezer 
          temperature.

               The tenant was served with a copy of the application and 
          afforded an opportunity to respond. The tenant filed a response on 
          February 17, 1993 and stated that the owner had not restored 
          services and that the application should be denied.
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on June 17, 1993 and 
          revealed that the kitchen faucets and freezer were repaired but 
          that the refrigerator temperature was 43 degrees while the setting 
          was at No. 3.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on July 
          13, 1993 and denied the application based on the inadequate 












          HI110225RO

          refrigerator temperature.

               On appeal the owner states that the owner replaced the 
          refrigerator, that the tenant adjusted the refrigerator to meet her 
          needs rather than comply with the DHCR standard, that an owner 
          representative had the right to be present during the inspection, 
          that inadequate refrigerator temperature cannot be a predicate for 
          a rent reduction since the tenant has control over the temperature, 
          that the DHCR inspector lacked the technical expertise to determine 
          issues regarding the adequacy of refrigerator temperature and that 
          prior DHCR rent reduction proceedings have been filed by the tenant 
          and found to be without merit.  The petition was served on the 
          tenant on November 30, 1993. 
           
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The Commissioner finds that the grounds set forth in the 
          petition are restatements of those submitted by the owner in his 
          petition for administrative review filed against the rent reduction 
          order (Docket No. GJ110197RO).  The  Commissioner rejected the 
          owner's appeal and affirmed the rent reduction order.  A party may 
          not collaterally attack a rent reduction order by filing an 
          administrative appeal against a rent restoration order nor may a 
          party attempt to relitigate issues which were raised and rejected 
          in the rent reduction proceeding.

               The Commissioner finds that the report of the DHCR inspector 
          is dispositive of the issue.  If the owner replaced the 
          refrigerator, he was under a duty to replace it with a functioning 
          unit.     There is no evidence in the record to substantiate the 
          owner's claims that the tenant caused the conditions complained of.  
          The order here under review is affirmed.  The owner may refile for 
          rent restoration when the refrigerator has been fully repaired.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 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.

          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