Docket No. CA 710352-RO
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.: CA 710352-RO
DRO DOCKET NO.:
N- GC-86S70-S
Premises: 59 Chestnut
Street,Apt. D,
Glen Cove, NY
Glen Mill Apartments PETITIONER
-----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodations described above.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant
to the issues raised by the petition.
The tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a complaint
asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain services
in the subject premises.
In its answer owner alleged it had made significant repairs
to the tenant's apartment, and that in 1983 the bathroom floor
had to be replaced as a result of the tenant's negligence. The
owner stated in general terms that the tenant had not taken
proper care of the apartment.
Thereafter an inspection of the subject premises was
conducted by a D.H.C.R. inspector who confirmed the existence of
defective conditions.
The Rent Administrator ordered a reduction of the regulated
Rent.
In its petition for administrative review, the owner states,
in substance, that repairs have been performed, as of January
1987. Owner also alleged lack of access in 1984 and 1985 to do
certain repairs and/or extermination. In addition the owner
alleges that on two occasions the tenant had left the water
running in a sink, thereby flooding the apartment below. Finally
the owner argues that it should have been notified of the
inspection and allowed to be present when the apartment was
inspected.
Docket No. CA 710352-RO
In response the tenant denied lack of access and stated that
the work in the apartment was completed in April 1987 rather than
in January 1987, as had been alleged by the owner. In general,
the tenant contends he had not been the cause of the damage to
the apartment covered by the Administrator's order.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
be denied.
The owner did not allege lack of access before the
Administrator. Having failed to allege lack of access below the
owner cannot make this allegation for the first time on appeal.
Similarly, the allegations regarding leaving the water on in a
sink were not made before the Administrator, nor does the owner
allege they were the cause of the defects found by the
inspector.
The physical inspection report disclosed the complained of
conditions existed and the Commissioner finds that the rent
reduction was warranted. DHCR policy, approved by the courts,
does not provide for parties to be present at inspections, except
as needed to provide access.
This order is issued without prejudice to the owner's right
to file the appropriate aplication for restoration of the rent,
if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Tenant
Protection Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and
the same hereby is, denied, and, that the order of the Rent
Administrator and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
