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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOs: EJ110258RO EJ110260RO
Richard Albert EJ110297RO EK110185RO
PETITIONER RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
------------------------------------X DOCKET NO.: DI130012OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On various dates, the above-name petitioner-owner filed petitions for
administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on October 15, 1990, by the
Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations known 93-41, 93-43,
93-49, 94-03 and 94-05 222nd Street, Queens, NY, various apartments wherein
the Administrator determined that the owner had not restored all services and
was not entitled to full restoration of 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 record indicates that on September 5, 1989, the owner filed an
application to restore rent seeking restoration of rents that had been
reduced in Docket Number BL190116B for cracked and unlevel sidewalks in the
courtyard, bent and loose chain stanchions in the courtyard, and a large
rotted tree in the courtyard that was in danger of falling. The owner stated
in the rent restoration application that a regular course of maintenance is
pursued as conditions occur and no rent reductions are necessary or
Several tenants responded to the application and stated that the owner had
not corrected the conditions listed in the rent reduction order.
A physical inspection of the premises by DHCR on April 23, 1990 revealed that
the courtyard had been repaired in an unworkmanlike manner, the chain
stanchions had been repaired, and the rotted tree had been cut down.
The owner was given the results of the inspection and afforded an opportunity
to substantiate the completion of repairs.
A second inspection on September 5, 1990 revealed that the repairs to the
courtyard sidewalks had been done in an unworkmanlike manner.
Based on this inspection, the Administrator issued orders denying the
application for stabilized tenants and granting it in part for rent
Doc Nos. EJ110258RO; EJ110260RO; EJ110261RO; EJ110264RO;
EJ110265RO; EJ110296RO; EJ110297RO; EK110185RO
In the petitions for administrative review, the owner asserts that full rent
restoration is warranted because the same quality of repairs to the walkways
had been found to be satisfactory to DHCR inspectors in other proceedings and
to experienced contractors. The owner also asserts that the rent should
never have been reduced for the chain stanchions and the rotted tree because
the tenants never complained about these items.
The petitions were served on the tenants on November 5, 1990. Those who
responded asserted that the petitions should be denied because the other
inspections referred to by the owner were much earlier in time and did
involve the same locations.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
owner's petitions should be denied.
The Administrator's orders were properly based on the results of two on-site
physical inspections by a DHCR employee who reported that the sidewalks had
been repaired in an unworkmanlike manner but other conditions cited in the
rent reduction order had been corrected. The other inspection referred to by
the owner took place on March 26, 1987, three years before the first
inspection in the instant proceeding and is not probative of whether the
conditions cited in the rent reduction order issued on July 6, 1989 had been
The other arguments made by the owner in his petitions concern the validity
of the rent reduction which is not an appropriate matter for consideration in
this proceeding. The Division's records indicate that the owner did file a
petition for administrative review of the rent reduction order which was
The owner may file another rent restoration application if the facts so
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, and the
Rent Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are denied and the Rent
Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is affirmed.
Joseph A. D'Agosta