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 NO.: HJ420241RT
DOCKET NO.: GF420101OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 13, 1993, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
September 15, 1993, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodation known as 295 Central Park West, New York,
N.Y., Apt. PH-A, wherein the Administrator partially granted the
owner's application for rent restoration.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly granted
the owner's application for rent restoration in part.
On May 11, 1992, the owner filed an application for rent
restoration alleging that it had restored all those services which
were the subject of the Rent Administrator's rent reduction order
of March 1, 1990, issued under Docket No. CL420619S.
The tenant filed an answer to the application alleging, in part,
that she needed an extension of time to answer the application due
to recent surgery. She also stated that the statements in the
application are untrue.
A DHCR inspection conducted on July 7, 1993, revealed that the
owner had restored window weather-stripping and the living room
ceiling but had failed to restore the living room window sill, the
kitchen window sill, the dining room window sill, the kitchen
ceiling and the dining room ceiling.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, that
the owner had not fully restored all services enumerated in the
rent reduction order and that she did not receive a copy of the
owner's rent restoration application.
The petition was served on the owner on December 2, 1993, and on
December 10, 1993, the owner filed an answer to the petition
stating that the appealed order should be upheld because it was
based on findings of a DHCR inspector.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The owner, on proof of restoration of those services which were the
subject of the Rent Administrator's reduction order is, by law,
entitled to an order of rent restoration.
A review of the record reveals that the rent reduction order of
March 1, 1990, reduced the rent based on the owner's failure to
maintain seven services.
The DHCR inspection of July 7, 1993, confirmed that the owner had
restored two of the seven services specified in the rent reduction
order and in reliance on this report, the Rent Administrator
partially restored the rent in the amount of $7.00 per month.
The Commissioner notes that the tenant's PAR merely stated that the
owner failed to restore all services enumerated in the rent
This is, however, exactly what the Rent Administrator determined in
partially granting the application.
Accordingly, the tenant's petition fails to establish that the Rent
Administrator improperly granted the owner's application in part.
The Commissioner further notes that contrary to the tenant's
allegations on appeal, the record demonstrates that the tenant was
served with a copy of the application on July 13, 1992 and that the
tenant actually answered the application on August 1, 1992.
Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly
based his determination on the entire record, including the results
of the on-site inspection conducted on July 7, 1993 and that the
Administrator properly granted in part the owner's application to
restore the rent.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the 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,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA