AL 210708 RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: AL 210708 RO
          JEROME BLOOM                            RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.:  031492

               On December 22, 1986 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued November 17, 1986. The order concerned housing 
          accommodations known as Apt 6H located at 143 Linden Blvd., 
          Brooklyn, N.Y.  The Administrator determined the tenant's objection 
          to the 1984 apartment/building registration.  

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 

               The tenant commenced this proceeding on September 7, 1984 by 
          filing an Objection to the 1984 apartment/building services 
          registration wherein she stated, inter alia, that the owner had 
          failed to list the following services as ones required to be 

                    1.   Blinds/shades,

                    2.   Apartment painting,

                    3.   Window screens,

                    4.   Fixtures,

                    5.   Trash disposal/removal,

                    6.   Maintenance services.

          The owner also stated that the owner was overcharging her rent.  

               On June 9, 1986 the Administrator sent the tenant a notice 
          wherein the tenant was requested to supply the name and address of 

          AL 210708 RO

          the building owner.  On June 27, 1986 the tenant filed a response 
          and stated the name of the building owner as well as the name and 
          address of the building managing agent.  A copy of the objection 
          was served on the managing agent and an opportunity to respond was 

               On July 23, 1986 the owner sent a letter to the Administrator 
          wherein it requested an extension of time to answer.  An answer was 
          then served on the Administrator on August 6, 1986 wherein the 
          owner stated "The owner is maintaining all essential services as 
          required by law."

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          November 17, 1986.  The order stated that the owner had failed to 
          respond to the objection.  The Administrator deemed admitted the 
          tenant's allegations regarding the blinds, shades, screens, 
          fixtures and trash disposal.  With regard to the maintenance 
          employees, the tenant was advised to file a complaint with the 
          appropriate DHCR unit alleging a diminution of services.  The 
          remainder of the tenant's objection, dealing with the rent 
          overcharge, was found to be a duplicate of a proceeding then 
          pending (see Docket No. K-3104412-R).  The Administrator 
          transferred the overcharge portion of this objection to the 
          appropriate DHCR unit for consolidation with the pending overcharge 

               On appeal, the owner states that it did file an answer to the 
          objection.  The owner makes the following statements with regard to 
          that portion of the Administrator's order relating to required 

                    1.   The landlord is not responsible for the 
                         installation of blinds and shades,

                    2.   Apartments are painted as required every three 

                    3.   All fixtures are provided as necessary,

                    4.   There is an incinerator and compactor which is in 
                         proper working order,

                    5.   Screens are not the responsibility of the landlord,

                    6.   There has been no reduction in maintenance 
                         employees as there has been, and continues to be, 
                         one superintendent.

          The owner did not file any supporting documentation nor did the 
          tenant file a response to the petition.  The Commissioner notes 
          that the tenant no longer resides in the subject apartment.

          AL 210708 RO

               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The owner is correct in asserting that an answer to the 
          objection was filed on August 6, 1986.  The Administrator did not 
          consider the owner's answer but, instead, deemed admitted the 
          tenant's objections to the apartment and building services 
          registration.  The Commissioner has studied the owner's answer, the 
          text of which is set out above.  It is a well settled principle of 
          administrative law that the scope of review in an administrative 
          appeal is limited to facts or evidence presented before the 
          Administrator unless it can be shown why such facts or evidence 
          could not be presented.  The owner's answer fails to raise any of 
          the claims that are now raised in the petition for administrative 
          review.  The owner, at no time, provided any evidence in support of 
          its statements nor, in fact, stated anything beyond the conclusory 
          allegation that all services required by law were being provided.  
          The Commissioner, therefore, finds that the Administrator correctly 
          determined that the objection should be granted to the extent of 
          finding that the blinds, shades, painting, screens, fixtures, and 
          trash disposal removal are services the owner is required to 
          provide.  The order here under review is affirmed.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it 

               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed.


                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Acting 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