STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
TRUMP MANAGEMENT, DOCKET NO.:
143-06 Barclay Avenue
PETITIONER Apt. 2D, Flushing, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administra-
tive review of an order 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 tenant commenced the proceeding below by filing a complaint
asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain services
in the subject apartment. Amongst the complained of conditions:
falling plaster from the bathroom ceiling.
The owner did not interpose an answer to the tenant's complaint.
Thereafter an inspection of the subject premises was conducted
by a D.H.C.R. inspector who confirmed the existence of defective
On February 26, 1988, the Rent Administrator directed restoration
of these services and further ordered, a reduction of the
In its petition, the owner contends that the order should be
reversed because all necessary repairs were made prior to the
issuance of the order. The owner asserts that in anoth r appli-
cation, under Docket No. BL 120130-S, filed on December 7, 1987,
the tenant stated "the bathroom was taken care of 2 weeks ago
November 9 and November 10." The owner went on to state that
since the tenant admits the work was done prior to February 26,
1988, the order should be revoked.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
The owner's contentions regarding repairs and the tenant's
statements in the application under Docket No. BL 120130-S are
both raised for the first time in the petition and are beyond the
scope of review of administrative appeals which is limited to a
review of facts or evidence before the Administrator. Moreover,
the physical inspection of the apartment took place on December
31, 1987, and therefore contradicts the tenant's vague statement
submitted by the owner that "the bathroom was taken care of . ."
in November 1987. Thus, the Commissioner finds the order here
under appeal was warranted.
The Commissioner notes that on March 30, 1988, the owner's appli
cation for a restoration of rent, based on a restoration of
services was granted.
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 Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner