BH 610125-RO

                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433




          ----------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE  REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  BH 610125-RO
           
                    RAFAEL ROMAN,     RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     BB 610333-S              
          ----------------------------------x                               

                          
                                                            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          On August 14, 1987, the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  an
          Administrative Appeal against an order issued on July  27,  1987,
          by the District Rent  Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall  Street,
          Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          1535 Westchester Avenue, Bronx, New York, Apt. 3-A.

          The issue herein  is  whether  the  District  Rent  Administrator
          properly reduced the rent of the subject apartment based  on  the
          owner's failure to provide essential services.

          The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, reduced 
          the rent to the level in effect prior to the last  guideline  in-
          crease which commenced before the effective date of the subject
          rent reduction.  This rent reduction was based upon an inspection 
          which showed that the apartment ceilings and walls  have  peeling
          paint and plaster and further that the bedroom window sash  glass
          is broken.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner alleges that two different docket 
          numbers are involved and that he filed an answer in the heat  and
          hot-water file (Docket No. BB 610185-HW) but not in the  services
          file (BB 610333-S); that all repairs had been made and  that  the
          tenant refused to provide access during normal working hours.




          After a careful consideration of the entire  evidence  of  record
          the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          An inspection held by  the  Division  of  Housing  and  Community
          Renewal on April 2, 1987, clearly showed that a number of repairs 
          noted in the tenant's complaint were not made. 






          BH 610125-RO

          Moreover, the Commissioner notes that even if the answer filed by 
          the owner in Docket No. BB 610185-HW is considered, it  does  not
          establish that the  rent  reduction  was  unwarranted.   In  that
          answer, the owner stated that all repairs to  correct  conditions
          cited in the tenant's complaint would be attended to shortly  and
          that they had not been done sooner because the tenant was  behind
          in rent and the owner agreed not to sue for  non-payment  if  the
          tenant did not push for repairs.

          The record is also devoid of any showing that  the  access  issue
          was raised below by the owner and it is  unsubstantiated  by  any
          evidence in the record.  Since the scope of administrative review 
          is limited to the facts or evidence which were raised before  the
          District Rent Administrator and this allegation was  not  raised;
          it may not now be considered for the first time on administrative 
          appeal.

          The Commissioner further notes  that  the  owner's  repair  bills
          submitted with the petition are all dated 1986  and  are  contra-
          dicted by the findings of the inspection held on April 2, 1987.

          Accordingly,  based  on  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  the
          Commissioner finds that the owner has offered insufficient reason 
          to  disturb  the  Administrator's  determination  and  that   the
          Administrator properly based  his  determination  on  the  entire
          record, including the results of the on-site inspection conducted 
          in the subject apartment.

          This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's 
          right to file the appropriate application with the  Division  for
          restoration of rent based upon a restoration of services, if  the
          facts so warrant.


          THEREFORE,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the   Rent
          Stabilization Law and Code, 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.


          ISSUED:




                                                                           
                                                   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