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.: CB110141RO


          JACOB KEMPLER,                         DISTRICT RENT               
                                                 ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: BE110063S

                                                 PREMISES:
                                                 88-14 161st St.
                                                 Apt.2L
                                                 JAMAICA, NY

                            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 on December 8, 1987 concerning the housing 
            accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.  

            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 issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order was 
            correct.

            This proceeding was commenced on May 5, 1987 by the tenant filing a 
            complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain various  
            services in the subject apartment.

            On May 21, 1987, DHCR transmitted a copy of the tenant's complaint 
            to the owner.

            In its answer filed on June 2, 1987, the owner asserted that he 
            "proceeded with immediate action to repair all necessary items."

            Thereafter,  an on-site inspection of the subject apartment was 
            conducted on October 30, 1987 by a DHCR  staff member who found that 
            there are large holes in the bathroom ceiling and wall area due to 
            water seepage and leakage, allowing vermin entry to the apartment; 
            that there is an odor from the water seepage in the plumbing; and 
            that there is roach and rodent infestation throughout the apartment, 
            coming from the holes in the walls and baseboard areas.
            CB110141RO











            In an order issued on December 8, 1987, the Administrator directed 
            the restoration of services and further ordered the reduction of the 
            stabilized rent.

            In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends that 
            a plumber has repaired the leak, that the ceiling has been painted, 
            that the tenant's lack of cleanliness caused the odor, and that the 
            exterminating company has advised that the tenant's lack of 
            cleanliness was responsible for the vermin infestation.

            On March 17, 1988, DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant.

            In an answer dated March 26, 1988, the tenant stated that no plumber 
            came to the apartment and no one has painted the ceiling, that the 
            foul odor still exists despite her constant cleaning and 
            deodorizing, that mice are coming into her home due to the hole in 
            the bathroom wall, and that the exterminating company never came 
            into her home.

            After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
            the petition should be denied.

            Despite the owner's contention of repairs, the Administrator's 
            determination was based on a DHCR inspector's on-site finding of 
            defective conditions within the apartment. Accordingly, the 
            determination was in all respects proper and is hereby sustained.

            The owner's allegations in the petition that the tenant was 
            responsible for the plumbing odor and the vermin infestation were 
            not raised in the proceeding below prior to the issuance and are now 
            raised for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, these assertions 
            are beyond the scope of administrative review which is limited to 
            the issues and evidence before the Administrator.

            THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
            it is

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



            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