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 
     APPEALS OF                                DOCKET NOs: EJ110258RO EJ110260RO
                                                           EJ110261RO EJ110264RO
                                                           EJ110265RO EJ110296RO
          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
     justified.

     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
     controlled tenants.


     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 
     repaired.

     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
     denied (DH110151RO).

     The owner may file another rent restoration application  if  the  facts  so
     warrant.

     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. 


     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