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.: DC510112RO
DOCKET NO.: CJ510534S
Blare Management Corp.,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 13, 1989, the above-named owner filed a timely petition
for administrative review against an order issued concerning the
housing accommodation known as Apartment 5W, located at 720 Ft.
Washington Avenue, New York, NY.
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 in this petition.
The tenant commenced the proceeding below on October 14, 1988
by filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to
maintain certain required services.
Although afforded an opportunity to do so the owner did not
interpose an answer.
Thereafter, on January 3, 1989, a staff inspector conducted an
on site inspection of the subject apartment and reported as
1. The small shower stall has a buckled ceiling and
Based thereon, the Rent Administrator, by order dated February
2, 1989, directed restoration of these services and further ordered
a reduction of the stabilized rent, of amount equal to the most
recent guideline adjustment.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner asserts
that all required repairs will be completed.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that this petition should be denied.
This 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 staff inspection
confirming the existence of defective conditions for which a rent
reduction is warranted.
The scope of review in an administrative appeal is limited to
facts or evidence presented to the Administrator. In the
proceeding below, not only did the owner fail to assert the repair
proposals, but also the owner failed to respond to the complaint.
Therefore, the Commissioner will not consider the arguments set
forth in the petition.
The Commissioner notes that this proceeding concerns whether
the owner failed to maintain certain required services.
Accordingly, whether the services may now be potentially restored
has no bearing on the Administrator's determination that the owner
had failed to
maintain such services at the time of inspection.
The owner may file a rent restoration application if the facts
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement for the
rent stabilized tenant resulted by the filing of this petition is
vacated upon the issuance of this order and opinion.
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 Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
Joseph A. D'Agosta