STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: BH210204RO
: DRO ORDER NO.: AG210931S
GILBERT SCOTT PREMISES: 359 St. John's Place
: Apartment: #2L
Brooklyn, New York
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative review concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above described docket number.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has carefully considered
that portion of the record relevant to the issues raised by the petition.
On December 9, 1985, the tenant commenced the proceeding below by filing a complaint of
decrease in services.
On July 16, 1986, the Rent Administrator served the tenant with a new complaint form,
requesting that it be completed and returned within twenty days, because the issues raised
in the original complaint of December 9, 1985, were not clear.
On July 23, 1986, the tenant resubmitted his complaint asserting that the owner failed to
maintain the following services:
1). There were broken windows with rotten frames.
The glass was broken on the storm windows.
2). There was a large hole in the bedroom ceiling.
3). There were large cracks on the living room walls.
4). There was a hole in the bathroom ceiling.
5). The kitchen ceiling was falling.
6). The entire apartment needed a paint job.
On January 28, 1987, the owner was served with the complaint and afforded twenty days to
interpose an answer.
PAR DOCKET NO.: BH 210204-RO
On February 2, 1987, the owner interposed an answer, stating in pertinent part that to his
knowledge all necessary repairs, rent impairing and otherwise, had been successfully
completed in that subject apartment.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject premises. The inspection was
conducted on May 26, 1987, and revealed that:
1). The owner had replaced the windows.
2). The small bedroom ceiling was cracked and was
peeling paint and plaster.
3). The tenant had repaired the living room wall.
4). The master bedroom had a leak damaged, water-
stained ceiling and wall.
5). The owner had made repairs to the living room wall
and the kitchen ceiling but they were not painted.
6). The small bedroom had a hole.
7). The hall wall was cracked and bulging.
8). The bathroom ceiling and wall were peeling paint
Based on the inspector's report, the Rent Administrator issued the order here under review
wherein a rent reduction was ordered.
In the petition, the owner states, in substance, that all the repairs were done prior to
receiving the tenant's complaint from the Division, and, therefore his answer to the
complaint below asserted that the repairs were completed. In addition, the owner states that
when Rent Administration was under the jurisdiction of the City of New York, there was one
form for repairs and another for painting and that he is not an expert on the various forms.
Thus, he did not understand that he had to explain that the apartment had been painted in
October 1984 and was not yet due for another painting. The owner went on to state that the
apartment was again painted during May 1987, prior to the order's date of issuance.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
The owner's contentions in his petition do not warrant modification or revocation of the Rent
Administrator's order. The owner's statement regarding the completion of repairs prior to
receiving the complaint is contradicted by the inspection report which found peeling paint
and plaster throughout the apartment and water stained ceilings. With respect to the owner's
statement regarding the form used to notify him that the apartment required a painting, the
Commissioner finds that the complaint sufficiently put the owner on notice of the conditions
complained of, including the need for painting.
PAR DOCKET NO.: BH 210204-RO
With regard to the allegations that the apartment was not due for painting, this claim is
raised for the first time in the petition. Thus, it is beyond the scope of review of
administrative appeals which is limited to a review of facts or evidence before the Rent
It is also noted that the owner did not submit any evidence to substantiate the claim that
painting was done in October 1984 and again in May 1987. Moreover, even if painting was not
yet due when the tenant filed the complaint, special circumstances such as leak damaged
ceilings and plaster repairs may necessitate painting sooner than the three year interval
mandated by the Housing Maintenance Code.
Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Commissioner finds the order here under review
was warranted, pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code which requires the
Division to order a rent reduction upon application by a tenant, when it is found that the
owner has failed to maintain required services.
The Commissioner notes that on June 20, 1988, under docket number BJ 210150-OR, the owner's
application for a restoration of rent, based on a restoration of services 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.
Joseph A. D'Agosta