CH 210077 RO
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.:
250 REALTY ASSOCIATES, DOCKET NO.:
2 Stoddard Place,
PETITIONER Apt. 6-B, Brooklyn, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued 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.
On October 22, 1987, the tenant commenced the proceeding below by
filing a complaint of decrease n services. Amongst the com-
plained of conditions:
1. The ceiling in the dining area was damaged from rain.
When it rained the area was completely wet and it
leaked in several spots.
2. Two closets leaked when it rained. These closets were
next to the dining area.
3. The roof needed to be repaired, then the ceiling
problem in the dining area.
4. The living room ceiling needed to be scraped and
painted. Paint chips were falling to the floor.
5. Leaks in the bedroom.
6. Kitchen faucet could not be turned off completely.
7. Radiator in the bathroom leaked.
On January 11, 1988, the owner interposed an answer, stating
that the roofer found the cause of the leak and was able to
repair that area. In addition, the owner stated that arrange-
ments were made with his painter to repair and touch up those
areas in need of attention. Attached to the owner's answer was a
signed work order by the tenant, wherein the tenant stated that
the painter did not have any paint and therefore was unable to
paint the ceiling. The owner went on to state that the building
CH 210077 RO
superintendent was directed to repair the kitchen faucet and
On February 25, 1988, the owner supplemented his answer stating,
in pertinent part, that the roof was repaired and that the tenant
had informed him that everything was tight and not leaking
On April 18, 1988, the tenant was served with the owner's answer
and afforded twenty (20) days to respond.
On May 9, 1988, the tenant responded, stating that the roof had
been repaired, but unfortunately continued to leak. The tenant
went on to state that the owner touched up the ceiling prior to
effectuating repairs on the roof. In addition, the tenant stated
that the kitchen faucet was still not repaired.
The Rent Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the
premises. The inspection was conducted on June 20, 1988, and
revealed the following:
1. There is evidence of ceiling - badly waterstained
plaster, large area - dining room.
2. The living room ceiling - peeling paint and plaster,
3. Bedro m ceiling - peeling paint and plaster-water-
On August 10, 1988, the Rent Administrator issued the order
hereunder review based on the inspector's report.
In the owner's petition, filed on August 12, 1988, the owner
states that the tenant has not cooperated with his contractors in
that he did not provide access to the premises for the purpose of
inspection until after taking the tenant to court and having a
judge order access dates. In addition, the owner states that the
roof no longer leaks in that it was repaired during the month of
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
The owner's claims regarding the denial of access and the subse-
quent court ordered access dates are unproven and raised for the
first time in the petition. These are therefore beyond the scope
of review of administrative appeals which is limited to a review
of facts or evidence before the Rent Administrator.
The remainder of the petition, which consist of the owner's
statement that the roof was repaired during May 1988, does not
warrant modification or revocation of the Rent Administrator's
order. The owner's statement does not address the conditions
found within the apartment upon physical inspection, whereupon
the Rent Administrator issued the order here under appeal.
Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Commissioner finds
CH 210077 RO
the Rent Administrator's order was warranted.
The Commissioner notes that on May 4, 1989, under Docket No. CK
210144-OR, the owner's application for a restoration of rent,
based on a restoration of services, was granted.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabili
zation Law and Code, it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner