STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                   BORUCH GREISMAN,               RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:


          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 
          cooking area.

          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 
          is, affirmed.


                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                Deputy Commissioner


TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name