DHCR Decisions
CB110191RO
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.: CB110191RO
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BG110432S
HEN YAM LEE CORP.
PREMISES: 36-07 Steinway St.
Apt. # 4C
Long Island City,
New York
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 February 5, 1988
concerning the housing accommodations relating to the above-
described docket number.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order
was warranted.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issues raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on July 10, 1987 by a rent
stabilized tenant who filed a complaint, asserting that the owner
failed to maintain the windows in the subject apartment.
On August 19, 1987, the Division sent the owner a copy of the
tenant's complaint.
In an answer filed on September 4, 1987, the owner stated that
it had ordered new thermo replacement windows for the apartment and
are now making interior repairs on the windows. The owner
submitted no evidence to substantiate this allegation.
Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the apartment was
conducted on December 10, 1987 by a Division staff member who
reported the following:
CB110191RO
1.) In one window of the livingroom, the top and bottom
sashes of the storm window are missing; the top and
bottom sashes of the interior window are loose; the
bottom pane is cracked; and the lock is
inoperative.
2.) In one window of the kitchen, both sashes of the
storm window are missing; the interior window sashes
are loose; and the lock is missing.
3.) In one window of the bedroom, both sashes of the
storm window are missing; the interior window sashes
are in need of repair; and the lock is inoperative.
The Administrator directed the restoration of services and
ordered the reduction of the stabilized rent.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends
that new replacement windows as shown by a copy of a repair
contract were ordered on August 20, 1987 and available for
installation on December 12, 1987; and that "four months between
order and installation of windows should not result in the issuance
of the order." The owner also states that according to a housing
code violation directive, a cracked window pane (as long as it is
not loose) is not a violation; that the window locks were painted
over and could have been easily freed if the tenant tried; that all
the windows were fully functional; and that the missing top and
bottom sashes refer to the storm windows discarded by the tenant.
On March 28, 1988, a copy of the petition was mailed to the
tenant.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petition should be denied.
Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code states that a
tenant may apply to the Division for a rent reduction and "the
Division shall so reduce the rent for the period for which it is
found that the owner has failed to maintain services." Section
2520.6(r) of the Code defines required services to include windows,
maintenance thereof etc.
The owner's allegation in the petition that a copy of a repair
contract shows that new windows were ordered prior to issuance of
the Administrator's order and were installed later after the
order's issuance is without merit. The owner failed to submit this
evidence in the proceeding below prior to issuance of the
Administrator's order. This claim is beyond the scope of review,
CB110191RO
which is limited to the issues and evidence before the
Administrator.
Despite the owner's contention that the cracked window pane
may not be a housing code violation, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that this defective condition by itself, and particularly
with the other numerous window deficiencies in this case, is a
decreased service which warrants a rent reduction.
All other contentions by the owner are without merit. The
Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based his
determination on the entire record, including the results of the
on-site inspection conducted on December 10, 1987, and that
pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the owner had failed to
maintain services, warranting a rent reduction.
The Commissioner notes that the owner's application for rent
restoration (CB110204OR) had been granted on December 15, 1988.
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
|