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.:
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 27, 1989, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on July
18, 1989, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accom-
modation known as 135 Prospect Park West, Brooklyn, NY, apartment
31-B, wherein the Administrator determined that the owner's appli-
cation for a restoration of the rent should be granted based upon
a restoration of four services for which a rent reduction order was
issued on October 13, 1987. A prior application for rent restora-
tion was denied under Docket No. CB210119OR.
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 administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly re-
stored the rent of the subject apartment.
On February 19, 1988, the owner filed an Application for Rent
Restoration, stating that services for which a rent reduction order
had been issued by the Administrator, on October 13, 1989, under
Docket No. BC210126S had been restored.
The tenant failed to file an answer to the owner's application for
rent restoration, even though a standard DHCR notice was mailed to
the tenant on February 8, 1989.
A DHCR inspection conducted on June 19, 1989, revealed that the
following services were found to be maintained:
1. Bathroom ceiling has been repaired and
2. Bathroom walls have been repaired.
3. Apartment entrance door has been repaired.
4. Kitchen floor tiles have been repaired.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, that
the effective date of the appealed restoration order was incorrect
insofar as the owner completed the work in May, 1989 instead of
March 1, 1989.
The petition was served on the owner on November 13, 1989, and on
November 20, 1989, the owner filed an answer to the petition
stating that all repairs were completed to the satisfaction of the
tenant prior to the DHCR inspection.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the tenant failed to file an answer to
the owner's application even though she was properly notified by
the Rent Administrator.
The Commissioner finds, therefore, that the petitioner having
failed to raise any issue whatsoever while the proceeding was
pending before the Rent Administrator, may not raise issues for the
first time on administrative appeal.
Accordingly, the Commissioner further finds that the Administrator
properly based his determination on the entire record, including
the results of the on-site inspection conducted in the subject
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby, is
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA