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.: HH410180RO
DOCKET NO.: GF410077OR
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
REVOKING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER AND REMANDING TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR FOR REDETERMINATION
On August 31, 1993, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on July 29,
1993 by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 205 West 95th Street, Apt. 3H, New York,
New York, wherein the Administrator determined that the alarm
system was not operational and denied the owner's application to
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.
This proceeding was commenced by the filing by the owner of an
application to restore rent on May 22, 1992. Petitioner alleged to
the Administrator that all services for which a rent reduction
order was issued under Docket No. DD410286S had been restored,
specifically that the alarm system had been rebuilt on July 15,
1990. Included on the application form was the tenant's statement
of consent dated and signed on May 18, 1992. On May 19, 1993, the
tenant withdrew her consent stating that the consent was signed
under the duress of an eviction proceeding.
An inspection conducted by a DHCR staff inspector on July 15, 1993
revealed that the alarm system is inoperative, that no magnetic
tape is installed.
In response to the owner's PAR, the tenant advised that the alarm
company installed magnets, not foil, on the windows on July 15,
1990, but that the magnets never worked. The owner responded that
the system needs a battery and submitted an affidavit of the super
that the tenant refused access to replace the battery. On PAR the
owner submitted a statement of her contractor that the system in
the subject apartment uses electronic glass break sensors which,
the contractor says, were installed at the request of the tenant.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
granted to the extent of remanding the proceeding to the
Administrator for redetermination and re-inspection.
Evidence submitted below by the owner and confirmed by the tenant
indicates that the alarm system does not operate by the use of
magnetic tape. It is apparent from the inspection report that the
inspector, in identifying the defect as lack of foil tape, was not
aware of this.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted,
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
revoked and the proceeding remanded to the Rent Administrator for
a redetermination of the issue therein in accordance with this
Order and Opinion.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA