ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: CI130132RO

                                  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.:              
                                                 CI130132RO
                                              :  
                                                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: 
                                                 BK120097B
                                                 
                                                 


                                                     
                 STANLEY GAC                                                 
                 A/K/A STANLEY GAEL                            
                                             
                                                  

                              PETITIONER      : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          

               On September 7, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed 
          a petition for administrative review of an order issued on July 29, 
          1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 45-34 42nd Street, Queens, New York, Various 
          Apartments, wherein the Administrator determined the tenants' 
          complaint of a reduction of certain-building wide-services.

               The challenged order reduced the rents for rent controlled 
          tenants by $10.00 based on the results of an inspection conducted 
          on February 25, 1988 that found inoperative top window sashes and 
          locks in public area windows throughout the building ($5.00), and 
          an inoperative door lock on the rear entrance exit door of the 
          subject premises ($5.00).  The Administrator determined that rent 
          reductions were not warranted for rent stabilized tenants.  
          However, the owner was directed to restore the services, as well as 
          to post and display the janitor's name, address and telephone 
          number.   

















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: CI130132RO

               The tenants had complained, in pertinent part, that the window 
          frames and sashes were rotted, that there was no emergency 
          telephone number posted, that there was no full-time 
          superintendent, and that the first floor hallway back door did not 
          have a secure lock.  The owner had responded, in pertinent part, 
          that the entrance doors and windows were secure, that all proper 
          signs were posted and that the building was in good condition. 

               On appeal, the owner contends, somewhat inconsistently, that 
          the tenants never complained about the public area windows and rear 
          hallway exit door defects, and that in any event, the conditions 
          were corrected in January 1988.  To support the claim of timely 
          repairs, the owner submits, for the first time on appeal, a copy of 
          a receipt dated January 6, 1988, indicating the purchase of a door 
          lock and several window sash latches, as well as the letter of a 
          tenant stating that he helped install the rear hallway door lock at 
          that time.

               While the owner submits on appeal evidence of repairs , an 
          administrative appeal is strictly limited to a review of the record 
          below and not to consider new claims and evidence.  The owner's 
          failure to present the evidence to the Administrator for 
          consideration, despite adequate opportunity to do so, precludes its 
          consideration for the first time in the instant proceedings.     

               The tenants' complaint citing rotted window frames and sashes 
          was sufficient notice to induce the owner to conduct its own 
          inspection to ascertain window defects, if any, requiring 
          corrective action.  Therefore, there was sufficient notice to alert 
          the owner to the missing window locks and stuck top sashes 
          conditions that were the predicate for the rent abatement granted. 

               The Rent Administrator also properly determined the tenant's 
          complaint of a defective rear door lock based on the record 
          presented, which included the February 25, 1988 inspection.  

               The owner also states on appeal that "...the door had two 
          inoperative locks and one that had worked having been installed in 
          January [1988]...", whereas below the owner asserted that the back 
          door latch was fully operable.  The owner suggests that the 
          inspector "...must have just seen the broken lock which consists of 
          a bolt that one moves..." and not a "...completely functional 
          'night latch Segal lock'...."  However, in light of evidence 
          indicating a defective condition, conjecture on the owner's part is 
          not sufficient reason to warrant a different result.    

               



               Division records also reveal that the Administrator issued a 
          rent restoration order on August 31, 1990 per Docket No. DC120046OR 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: CI130132RO

          based on the results of an inspection on August 14, 1990 which 
          revealed that the window sashes and locks were operable, that there 
          was no evidence of a defective rear door lock and the 
          superintendent's name, address and telephone number were posted. 

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and 
          Code, the City Rent Control Law and the Rent and Eviction 
          Regulations, it is

               ORDERED, that the owner's petition be denied and that the 
          Administrator's order be affirmed. 

          ISSUED:


                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Deputy Commissioner




                                                    

           






    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name