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.:
ELIZA KATZ KAUFMAN,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenant refiled and perfected a timely petition for
administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on October 18, 1988,
concerning the housing accommodations known as 105 Pinehurst
Avenue, New York, New York, Apartment 54, wherein the Administrator
fully restored the tenant's rent, previously reduced per Docket No.
BB520677S. A partial rent restoration was previously granted per
Docket NO. BJ520100OR
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 owner commenced this proceeding by filing a rent restoration
application, asserting in substance, that the apartment had been
repainted, and reiterating that new windows had been installed.
In an answer, the tenant acknowledged that the apartment had been
repainted but she complained that the woodwork of several windows
was not painted, nor cracks repaired. The tenant also complained
about some conditions therein not cited as predicates for the
underlying rent reductions.
An inspection held on August 24, 1988 by a Division of Housing and
Community Renewal (DHCR) inspector, who reported that there was no
evidence of peeling paint and plaster. The inspector also found
that new windows installed throughout the apartment were not
defective, noting however, a hole in the woodwork area of one
The Rent Administrator directed restoration of rent for all items,
notwithstanding the defect in one window area, noted above.
In the petition for administrative review, the tenant reiterates
arguments below that the woodwork areas of the windows had not been
painted. The tenant also asserts that part of the kitchen foyer
and a back bedroom had not been painted and that plaster was
peeling in the front bedroom ceiling. The tenant also complains
that seepage from heat risers was causing damage to the apartment.
A copy of the petition was served on the owner.
The inspection report that provided the basis for the Adminis-
trator's order was prepared by a impartial DHCR inspector who is
not a party to the proceedings. In determining the outcome, the
report placed in the record for the Administrator's consideration
was entitled to, and was afforded, substantial weight.
Since the record reflects that painting and plastering were
completed throughout the apartment and that window defects had been
substantially corrected, and the services restored, the rent
restoration was proper and should be affirmed.
The Commissioner is of the further opinion that in concluding that
a hole in the woodwork of one window did not constitute defective
service, for that window, the Administrator exercised discretion
properly, and that no warrant exists to disturb the Administrator's
As to the new complaints, the Commissioner notes that neither rent
restoration proceedings, nor administrative review proceedings, are
the proper vehicle to raise complaints that were not cited as
services reductions in the underlying rent reduction determination.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
the City of New York, 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 is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA