CA630328RO

                                  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.: CA630328RO
                                                  
          PAULDING DEVELOPMENT CO.                RENT
          SEYMOUR MAIZES                          ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: BB630022B
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND   
                      MODIFYING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
                                          
               On January 28, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner timely 
          refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of 
          the Rent Administrator issued November 2, 1987. The order concerned 
          various housing accommodations located at 2121 Paulding Avenue, 
          Bronx, N.Y.  The Administrator directed restoration of services and 
          ordered a reduction of the maximum and stabilized legal rents.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 
          appeal.

               This proceeding was commenced on February 5, 1987  when 66 of 
          the 121 tenants filed a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in 
          Building-Wide Services wherein they alleged, in substance, that the 
          owner was not maintaining certain required or essential services.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner failed to file a response.
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspection was conducted on May 15, 1987.  The 
          building was reinspected on May 18 and May 19, 1987.  The 
          inspections revealed the following:

                    1.   Vents in public hallways not functioning 
                         effectively on all floors,

                    2.   Public halls need touch up with paint in the area 
                         of the East and West sides,

                    3.   Entrance of building littered,












          CA630328RO


                    4.   Fence needs repair in front of building.  Entire 
                         landscaping grass needs cutting and cleaning,

                    5.   Evidence of leak above entrance,

                    6.   Swings removed from playground and three lights 
                         broken.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          November 2, 1987.  The Administrator set forth the inspector's 
          report but, in the first finding, stated that the "public bathroom" 
          vents were inoperative instead of the "public hallway" vents 
          reported by the inspector.  The Administrator ordered a rent 
          reduction of $26.00 per month for rent controlled tenants and of an 
          amount equal to the most recent guideline adjustment for rent 
          stabilized tenants. 

               On appeal the owner states that it did not receive notice of 
          the complaint and, therefore, was unable to file a response.  The 
          owner then states, in substance, that the conditions cited in the 
          order here under review are being maintained or that the 
          appropriate repairs have been made.  The petition was served on the 
          tenants on March 11, 1988.

               Various tenants filed responses wherein they stated, in sum, 
          that the order here under review was correctly issued and should be 
          affirmed.
           
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied 
          but that the Administrator's order should be modified.

               The Commissioner notes that the scope of review in an 
          administrative appeal is limited to facts or evidence that were 
          presented to the Administrator unless it can be shown that such 
          facts or evidence could not have been presented.  The owner did not 
          respond to the complaint and now states that it never was served 
          with a copy.  However, a review of DHCR records reveals that the 
          complaint was sent to the owner at the address listed on the 
          complaint and was not returned by the post office.  Although the 
          owner indicates a different address in the petition, the Division's 
          records reveal that the owner did not register this address with 
          the Division in a timely manner or otherwise notify the 
          Administrator of any change in ownership or mailing address.  
          Therefore, the owner cannot now complain that it has been 
          prejudiced by the failure to receive the complaint and the matters 
          raised for the first time in the petition are beyond the scope of 
          review of this appeal.

               The Commissioner notes, however, that the Administrator erred 
          in ordering a rent reduction for inoperative public bathroom vents.






          CA630328RO

          As noted above, the DHCR inspector reported that the public hallway 
          vents were inoperative on all floors.  Therefore, the order here 
          under review is modified to substitute the word "hallway" for 
          "bathroom" in the first finding.  The order is affirmed as 
          modified.

               The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement for rent 
          stabilized tenants that resulted by the filing of this petition is 
          vacated upon issuance of this order and opinion.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and 
          Rent and Eviction Regulations it is 

               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed as modified herein.

          ISSUED:



                                                                             
                                             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