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.:
JONAS EQUITIES INC.,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named petitioner-owner filed a timely petition for admin-
istrative review (PAR) of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodation known as 207 Ocean Parkway, Apartment 5-C, Brooklyn,
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 petition.
The tenant commenced the proceeding below by filing a complaint on
November 25, 1987, asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
certain services in the subject apartment.
In an answer, dated January 12, 1988, the owner denied that the
tenant had been deprived of any services. He enclosed a copy of a
waterproofing contract, advised that the work would be done as soon
as conditions permit, and requested that an inspection take place
only after work is completed and only upon notification to the
Thereafter, on July 1, 1988, an inspection of the subject apartment
was conducted by a Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)
inspector who confirmed the existence of the following defective
In the living room, near the window, there is peeling
paint and plaster due to water seepage from exterior
The Rent Administrator directed restoration of these services and
further ordered a reduction of the stabilization rent.
In its petition for administrative review, the owner states, in
substance, that the Administrator disregarded its request that the
inspection take place only after the work was completed, that con-
ditions that existed did not merit a rent reduction, and that the
tenant has informed the owner that she had no knowledge of this
complaint and it is not in her handwriting.
The DHCR served a copy of the petition on the tenant on September
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR
is required to order the rent reduction, upon application by the
tenant, where it is found that the owner has failed to maintain
required services. The owner's petition does not establish any
basis for modifying or revoking the Administrator's order which
determined that the owner was not maintaining required services
based on a physical inspection confirming the existence of defec-
tive conditions in the subject apartment for which a rent reduction
is warranted. The owner had an adequate amount of time to arrange
for the repairs to be made before the inspection held on July 1,
The scope of review in administrative appeals is limited to a
review of facts or evidence that were before the Administrator.
The failure of the owner to raise the issue that the complaint was
not written in the tenant's handwriting below and to submit sub-
stantiating evidence precludes consideration of the issue for the
first time in this appeal proceeding.
The Division's records indicate that a rent restoration application
was denied on February 8, 1989 (Docket No. CH210108OR).
The owner may file another rent restoration application if the
facts so warrant.
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted
by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this
Order and Opinion.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabili-
zation Law and Code and the Emergency Tenant protection Act of
1974, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby, is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA