DHCR Decisions          CA420036RO                                                                    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.:               CA420036RO                    LOUIS DE VITO,                                                          RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S                                                  DOCKET NO.:                                   PETITIONER     BE420230S          ----------------------------------x            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW                                                    On January 7, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on          December 4, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing          accommodation known as 285 Mott Street, New York, New York, apart-          ment A-4, wherein the Administrator determined that there was a          diminution of services and reduced the tenant's rent by $3.00 per          month.  The determination was based on the results of an inspection          of the subject premises held on October 22, 1987, which showed that          the hallway floor was uneven.  The Rent Administrator also directed          restoration of services.          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the          issue raised by the administrative appeal.          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced          the rent of the subject apartment.          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted that despite several          attempts to correct the service deficiency, access could not be          gained to the tenant's apartment.  In support of his contention on          appeal, he submitted separate certified mail receipts respectively          dated August 27, 1987 and September 19, 1987, (Return Receipt          Requested) which were signed by the tenant.  These receipts were          evidence of separate access requests which were mailed to the          tenant.          CA420036RO                                          The petition was served on the tenant on February 22, 1988.            The tenant answered the petition alleging that the owner was mis-          representing the facts in that the only reason the workers were          denied access was because of illness;  that subsequent thereto          access was always offered to the owner but that the owner's          employee failed to appear for the second access appointment and has          not returned since that time.          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal          should be denied.          For rent controlled tenants Section 2202.16 of the Rent and          Eviction Regulations provides that a finding that an owner has          failed to maintain services may result in an order of decrease in          maximum rent, in an amount determined by the discretion of the Rent          Administrator.          A review of the record before the Administrator clearly shows that          the owner did not submit any evidence that the deficiency noted on          the inspector's report was completed in a workmanlike manner at the          time of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal's (DHCR)          inspection or at any time prior to the issuance of the Administra-          tor's order.          Furthermore, the record before the Rent Administrator discloses          that although the owner raised the access issue below; he did not          submit any evidence in support of his allegations.          Since the scope of administrative review is limited to the facts or          evidence which were raised before the Rent Administrator and the          access issue was not supported by any evidence below it may not now          be considered for the first time on administrative appeal.          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds 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.          CA420036RO                                          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent & Eviction          Regulations, it is,          ORDERED, that this 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