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
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.
MARVIN H. GREENE,
PETITIONER KC 002967-S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 29, 1986, the above-named owner filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on December 10, 1986 by
a District Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommoda-
tion known as 8758 Bay Parkway, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment
This proceeding was commenced by the filing of an application by
the tenant on June 11, 1985 for a reduction in rent based on the
landlord's failure to maintain services in the subject apartment.
The tenant included copies of letters dated November 1, 1984,
December 1, 1984, February 1, 1985 and May 1, 1985 notifying the
landlord that painting of the entire apartment was due and that
repairs were needed.
In his answer, the landlord did not deny the need for repairs and
painting or the allegations of prior notice to him by the tenant,
but said that a date would be scheduled for the work when the
tenant notifies him.
On November 19, 1985 the tenant responded to the landlord's
answer asserting, in pertinent part, that the work had still not
been done. The tenant also asserted that during the week of
October 28, 1985 he had called the office of the landlord to make
an appointment for the work in his apartment and that although a
message was left with the receptionist, the landlord did not
return the call to schedule the work.
On May 11, 1986 the tenant, pursuant to a Division of Housing and
Community Renewal (DHCR) request for updated information, as-
serted in pertinent part that the work had still not been done.
An inspection of the subject apartment was conducted on June 17,
1986 by a DHCR inspector, who confirmed that the kitchen, living
room and bedroom had peeling paint and plaster and noted that
although the bathroom had been repaired, the repairs had been
done in an unworkmanlike manner.
On December 10, 1986 the District Rent Administrator issued the
order here under review, reducing the rent to reflect the failure
to make repairs or to complete them in a workmanlike manner.
In his petition for administrative review, the landlord states
that the tenant denied access until January 1987.
In his answer, the tenant denies the landlord's allegation of no
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the landlord's petition should be denied.
The landlord asserts for the first time on appeal that the tenant
has refused to permit access. The Commissioner notes that this
issue may not be considered for the first time on administrative
review. Moreover, even if the issue were properly before the
Commissioner, it would fail on its merits. The tenant has sub-
mitted voluminous evidence of repeated requests for the work and
for appointments, to no avail. Additionally, the landlord failed
to deny the tenant's allegations of attempts to have the landlord
do the work when this proceeding was before the District Rent
Administrator. Finally, the landlord's assertion of no access
is belied by the report of inspection, which showed some repairs
were indeed done, but in an unworkmanlike manner.
Accordingly, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the District
Rent Administrator's order should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent and Rehabilitation
Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.