ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BJ 630089 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.:
BJ 630089 RO
:
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
BB 610698 - S
CHARLES WAXMAN
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 13, 1987 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on September
18, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 16 Elliot Place, Bronx, New York, Apartment
2D, wherein the Administrator determined the tenant's complaint of
decreased services. While essentially involving building-wide
services, the Administrator processed the case docket as an
individual tenant's complaint.
The Administrator granted the tenant a rent reduction based on
the results of an inspection conducted on August 10, 1987 that
confirmed the tenant's complaint of decreased services. The
inspector reported that the drainage plate located at the main
entrance, as well as the mailbox door and a lobby bannister, were
missing, that the bell/buzzer system was inoperative, that the
building entrance door was off its hinges, that the public areas
required sweeping and mopping, and that the fire escape was rust
covered and peeling paint.
On appeal, the owner asserts that the bell/buzzer system has
not been provided for thirty (30) years. The owner also claims
that all other services were provided or have been restored.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BJ 630089 RO
The Commissioner notes that the owner raises the issue of
whether the bell/buzzer system was a base date service for the
first time on appeal. However, an administrative appeal is
strictly limited to a review of the facts and issues presented to
the Administrator for his consideration. The owner's bare
allegation that the bell/buzzer system was not a base date service,
presented for the first time on appeal, does not warrant
reconsideration of the Administrator's order below, properly
determined based on the record before him.
The owner's claims that the remaining services were provided
were belied by the inspector's observations. The Commissioner
notes that the inspector who prepared the report was a rent agency
employee, not a party to the proceeding, and not an adversary to
either the owner or the tenant. His report was placed in the
record for consideration by the Administrator and was properly
afforded great weight.
The Commissioner further notes that the owner failed to
establish when services were restored. If the repairs were made
before the order was issued, there is no indication that the owner
provided evidence for the Administrator's consideration.
Consequently, the determination below was correct based on the
record presented. If on the other hand, repairs were completed
following the issuance of the order, then no warrant exists to
reconsider the determination.
Division records also reveal that the owner's application for
rent restoration per Docket No. BJ 610143 OR was denied on May 19,
1988. A subsequent rent restoration application is pending per
Docket No. FK 610054 OR.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
