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
|
