ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI 110248 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.:              
                                                 BI 110248 RO                
                                  
                                              :  
                                                 
                                                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S    
                                                 DOCKET NO.:                 
                                                 BA 110403 S
             SUN MANAGEMENT CO                                
                                                  

                              PETITIONER      : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On September 30, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed 
          a petition for administrative review of an order issued on August 
          26, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 41-41 41st Street, Apartment 1B, Queens, New 
          York, wherein the Administrator determined the tenant's complaint 
          of a reduction of services filed on January 26, 1987.

               The challenged order reduced the tenant's rent based on the 
          results of an inspection conducted on July 14, 1987 that confirmed 
          the tenant's complaint that the bedroom ceiling required repairs.  
          The inspector reported that while the bedroom had been painted 
          recently, the work was done in an unworkmanlike manner, in that the 
          ceiling should have been scraped and plastered prior to painting.

               On appeal, the owner requests that the rent reduction be 
          revoked on the grounds that the owner was denied due process in 
          that the Administrator was denied due process in that the 
          Administrator failed to adhere to allegedly established procedures 
          providing the owner with notification of either the inspection or 
          the results thereof. 



















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI 110248 RO

               However, the Division's procedures, now as then, do not 
          require that notice of the inspection be given to the parties 
          unless their presence is required, nor to apprise the parties of 
          the result.  Moreover, the Courts have affirmed the Division's 
          position that there is no due process requirement to serve 
          inspection reports on the owner.  Empress Manor v DHCR, 538 N.Y.S. 
          2d 49 (App Div. 2nd Dept.).  The owner was afforded due process 
          notice by service of the tenant's complaint.

               The owner suggests the tenant declined the owner's offer to 
          complete repairs.  However, the July 1987 inspection revealed that 
          given access to paint the apartment, the work was not completed 
          properly.

               The owner also argues that since the ceiling was painted it 
          cannot be said that there was a decrease in services.  However, a 
          defective condition is not considered repaired in a workmanlike 
          manner unless defects are fully corrected.  The owner's comments 
          further suggest that the owner intended to make superficial repairs 
          only.

               Hence, the rent reduction was warranted as the owner failed to 
          correct the conditions although given the opportunity to do so.

               The Commissioner also notes that the scope of an 
          administrative appeal is strictly limited to a review of the record 
          below, and not to consider new claims or evidence that could 
          reasonably have been presented to the Administrator for 
          consideration.  Having failed to submit below the tenant's August 
          17, 1987 statement that she did not wish to have the ceiling  
          painted at the time, the owner could not submit the evidence for 
          the first time on appeal.

               As an alternative remedy, the owner had the right to apply to 
          have the rent restored predicated on the tenant's refusal to permit 
          the owner to complete repairs, or, once the facts warranted, based 
          on a restoration of services.  In fact, DHCR records reveal that on 
          August 1, 1988, the Administrator granted the owner's application 
          to restore rent per Docket No. BL-110168 OR filed on December 31, 
          1987.

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







               ORDERED, that the owner's petition be denied and that the 
          Administrator's order be affirmed. 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI 110248 RO


          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