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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.: CB410123RT
THOM DEBECK RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above referenced administrative appeals have been
consolidated as both contain common issues of law and fact.
The above named petitioner-owner timely refiled a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order of the Rent Administrator
issued November 6, 1987. The order concerned housing accommodations
known as Apt 20 located at 417 E. 9th Street, New York, N.Y. The
Administrator granted the owner's rent restoration application.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The owner commenced this proceeding on April 1, 1987 by filing
a rent restoration application wherein it stated, in sum, that it
had restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing
Docket No. AE410353S had been issued. The Commissioner notes that
the rent had been reduced based on the Administrator finding that
the water in the apartment was dirty, rusty and contained small
The tenant was served with a copy of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The tenant did not file a
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on July 30, 1987 and
revealed that the water was clean and clear. The Administrator
issued the order here under review on November 6, 1987 and granted
the application based on the inspector's report.
The tenant originally filed a petition for administrative
review against the above described order. The Commissioner
rejected this appeal in an order issued January 29, 1988. The
Commissioner ruled that the appeal was defective in that the tenant
failed to include a copy of the order appealed from. The instant
petitions represent identical refilings. The tenant states, in
sum, that the owner has not restored services, that the condition
relating to the water still exists and that, therefore, the
Administrator erred in issuing the order here under review. In
Docket No. CB410123RT the tenant also states that his original
petition contained a copy of the order here under review. The
petitions were served on the owner.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitions should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the scope of review in an
administrative appeal is limited to facts or evidence presented to
the Administrator unless it can be shown that such facts or
evidence could not be presented. The tenant did not file a
response to the application although afforded an opportunity to do
so and has offered no excuse for this default. The Commissioner
will not consider the tenant's arguments on appeal. The order here
under review is affirmed.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA