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.:
BORUCH GREISMAN, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 4, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner timely refiled
a petition for administrative review of an order issued on October
21, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accom-
modation known as 321 Edgecombe Avenue, New York, New York, Apt.
2-E, wherein the Administrator determined that the maximum legal
rent for subject rent controlled apartment should be reduced by
$12.00 per month, based upon a diminution of services. The Rent
Administrator's order was based upon an inspection held on August
13, 1987, which showed that the subject apartment had a defective
entrance doorbell and intercom and that no sink was provided in the
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 rent controlled apartment.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted that the doorbell and
intercom are working and further that the building was legally
built without sinks in the one room apartments and that sinks are
not required by the Housing Maintenance Code. Included with the
petition are illegible copies of documents which the owner says
support the statement that sinks are not legally required.
The petition was served on the tenant on March 7, 1988.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
On March 16, 1987, the tenant filed a Complaint of a Decrease in
A Notice and Transmittal of the Tenant's Complaint was mailed to
the owner on April 9, 1987, but the record is devoid of any answer
having been filed on behalf of the owner.
Since the scope of administrative review is limited to the facts or
evidence which were raised before the Rent Administrator and the
issue of repairs completion was not raised below, it may not now be
considered for the first time on administrative appeal.
Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations provides that
an owner's failure to maintain essential services may result in an
order of decrease in maximum rent, in an amount determined by the
discretion of the Rent Administrator. Essential services are
defined in Section 2200.3(b) as those essential services which the
landlord furnished, or which he was obliged to furnish on April 30,
1962 and which were included in the maximum rent on that date.
Section 2201.2 defines the services included in the maximum rent as
"the same essential services, furniture, furnishings and equipment
as were furnished or required to be furnished on April 20,
1962 . . . "
Here, the Rent Administrator properly based his determination on an
inspection held on August 13, 1987, which confirmed a defective
apartment doorbell, intercom, and the absence of a sink in the
With regard to the sink, the Division's own investigation estab-
lished that a sink is required, pursuant to the Housing Maintenance
Code, in the kitchen of every apartment in the subject building.
The owner's attempt to establish otherwise is unconvincing in that
the documents are substantially illegible and appear to refer to a
violation or complaint pertaining to a different apartment. As
equipment required to be furnished by the Housing Maintenance Code,
a rent reduction for the absence of a sink in the kitchen was
warranted even if the apartment never had a sink.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and Evic-
tion Regulations for New York City, it is,
ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same hereby
is, denied, and the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA