STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: CB110190RO
HEN YAM LEE CORP., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BG110215S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 26, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
February 12, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodation known as 36-07 Steinway Street, Long Island
City, New York, Apt. 3-E, wherein the Administrator determined that
a reduction in rent was warranted based upon a reduction in
The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of services.
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 apartment.
On July 9, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the
owner was not providing various services and repairs.
The owner filed an answer to the complaint on September 15, 1987,
alleging that all requisite repairs have been addressed and
A DHCR inspection conducted on December 11, 1987, revealed that:
1. Peeling paint and plaster in bathroom. Cracked
bathroom wall, bathtub has been cemented in unworkmanlike
manner, toilet tank pressure is inadequate, bathroom
ceiling cracked, defective bathroom door lock.
2. Cracked living room walls.
3. Kitchen walls uneven and in need of painting.
4. Hallway walls in need of painting and plastering.
5. Defective ceiling light (hazardous).
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
the subject apartment was last painted in July 1985, within the
required three year period; that the light in question did not have
to be repaired because the tenant already repaired it; that it was
not informed by the tenant of any problem with the bathroom door
lock or water-pressure and that they were not required services.
The petition was served on the tenant on March 28, 1988.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the Administrative appeal
should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 (a) of the Rent Stabilization Code,
"A tenant may apply to the Division of Housing and
Community Renewal (DHCR) for a reduction of the legal
regulated rent to the level in effect prior to the most
recent guidelines adjustment, and the DHCR shall so
reduce the rent for the period for which it is found that
the owner has failed to maintain required services."
Required services are defined in Section 2520.6 (r) to include
repairs and maintenance.
A review of the record indisputably shows that the complained of
conditions and concomitant diminution of services existed at the
time of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)
inspection held on December 11, 1987, and at the time of the
issuance of the Rent Administrator's order on February 12, 1988.
The record demonstrates that a Notice and Transmittal of Tenant's
Complaint was mailed to the owner on September 2, 1987 at the
owner's correct address. The complaint listed "bathroom bad
condition" as one of the items requiring repair putting the owner
on notice of repairs required in the bathroom which the owner had
an obligation to investigate and correct.
The owner's answer of September 15, 1987, stated, in essence, that
all necessary repairs had been addressed and corrected, but it
failed to raise the issues noted in the appeal concerning the date
of the last painting and repairs purportedly made by the tenant to
the light fixture.
Since the scope of administrative review is limited to the facts or
evidence which were raised before the Rent Administrator and the
issues raised on appeal were not raised below, they may not now be
considered for the first time on administrative appeal.
The owner had five months from the date of service of the tenant's
complaint until the issuance of the Administrator's order to
investigate the tenant's complaint and to make the necessary
repairs, but failed to do so.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly
based his determination on the entire record, including the results
of the on-site inspection conducted in the subject apartment.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's
right to file the appropriate application with the Division for
restoration of rent based upon a restoration of services, if the
facts so warrant.
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted
by the filing of this petition is vacated upon the issuance of this
order and opinion
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, 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,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA