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.: CC420170RO
476 West 165 St. Realty/
H. Greenbaum, DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BF410454S
PREMISES:
476 West 165 St.
Apt.3A
NY, 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 January 21, 1988 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
warranted.
This proceeding was commenced on June 18, 1987 by the tenant filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain various
services in the subject apartment.
On August 12, 1987, DHCR transmitted a copy of the tenant's
complaint to the owner.
In its answer filed on September 28, 1987, the owner denied the
allegations as set forth in the tenant's complaint and otherwise
asserted that required services are being provided.
Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted on November 17, 1987 by a DHCR staff member who reported
that the tiles in the bathroom are defective, cracked and broken;
that the living room wall has a large hole; that the intercom is
defective; that the basin in the bathroom does not have a
plug/stopper; that the tub drainage is slow ; and that the bedroom
CC420170RO
wall displays thin cracks.
In an order issued on January 21, 1988, 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
the tenant refused access to the owner's making repairs in the
apartment.
On May 20, 1988, DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
The owner's petition does not dispute the Administrator's
determination which was based upon a DHCR inspector's finding of
numerous defective conditions within the apartment. Accordingly, the
determination was in all respects proper and is hereby sustained.
The allegation that the tenant refused access was not raised in the
proceeding below prior to the issuance of the Administrator's order
and is now raised for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, this
assertion is 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
|
