ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BH 110230 RO


                                  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
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.:               
                                                 BH 110230 RO 
                                              :
                                                 DRO DOCKET NO.:           
                                                 AJ 110528-S              
                 E & S REALTY CO.                
                 ROSE WOLF,                      Premises: 144-03 Barclay   
                                                           Ave., Apt. #5B 
                                                           Flushing, NY
                              PETITIONER      : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               The  above-named  owner  timely   filed   a   petition   for
          administrative review of an order issued concerning  the  housing
          accommodations relating to the above described docket number.

               The Commissioner has reviewed all of  the  evidence  in  the
          record and has carefully considered that portion  of  the  record
          relevant to the issues raised by the petition.  

               On October 29, 1986, the  tenant  commenced  the  proceeding
          below by filing a complaint of  decrease  in  services  asserting
          that the owner had failed to paint the apartment since  he  moved
          in during 1979.

               On  December  2,  1986,  the  owner  was  served  with   the
          complaint and afforded twenty days to interpose an answer.

               The owner did  not  interpose  an  answer  to  the  tenant's
          complaint. 








               On June 8, 1987, an inspection was conducted by  a  Division
          inspector.  The inspector stated in his report that the  ceilings
          in all rooms had peeling paint and  badly  flaking  plaster  with
          cracks.  The inspector further stated  in  his  report  that  the
          walls in all the rooms had peeling paint and plaster and that the 
          subject premises needed painting and plastering.

               On  July  31,  1987,   the   Rent   Administrator   directed






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BH 110230 RO
          restoration of these services and further ordered, a reduction of
          of the stabilization rent.

               In the petition, the owner states that on December 18, 1986, 
          she and the tenant mutually agreed to have the apartment  painted
          during January 1987.  The owner asserted  that  a  copy  of  this
          agreement was hand delivered to the Division.  The owner went  on
          to state that subsequent to the agreement, the  tenant  left  the
          United States on a trip, and that the tenant's  wife  refused  to
          allow  any  work  to  be  performed  inside  the  apartment.   In
          addition, the owner states that  the  apartment  was  painted  on
          August 14 and 15 of 1987. 

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition  should
          be denied.

               The owner's claims regarding her agreement with the  tenant,
          the subsequent denial of access and the painting of the apartment 
          during August 1987 are not part of the record below.  Thus,  they
          are beyond the scope of review of administrative appeals which is 
          limited to  a  review  of  facts  or  evidence  before  the  Rent
          Administrator.  Moreover, the existence of any agreement with the 
          tenant is unproven, in that the copy attached to the petition  is
          not signed by the tenant.  Assuming arguendo, that said agreement 
          did exist, the owner was served with the complaint on December 2, 
          1986, and the order here under review was issued on June 8, 1987, 
          allowing the owner over seven months to have either  painted  the
          apartment or notified the Rent Administrator that access  to  the
          apartment was denied by the tenant.  

               Based on a preponderance of the evidence,  the  Commissioner
          finds that the order here under review was warranted.

               The Commissioner notes that on March 9,  1988,  the  owner's
          application for a restoration of rent, based on a restoration  of
          services, under docket number BH 110156-OR, was granted.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and 
          Code, it is



               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.

          ISSUED:

                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting Deputy Commissioner