DHCR Decisions          CA420183RO                                    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.:                                                    CA420183RO                                                       BORUCH GREISMAN,               RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S                                                  DOCKET NO.:                                                  BC520442S                                   PETITIONER                                  ----------------------------------x            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          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.          CA420183RO          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            Service.          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          kitchen.          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,          CA420183RO          ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same hereby          is, denied, and the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby          is, affirmed.          ISSUED:                                                                                                                        JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA                                                Deputy Commissioner