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.: DJ210214R0
James Zacharakos/ S. Drogaris
Realty Management Co. C/O
Michael Greber, DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: CG210651S
PETITIONER PREMISES: 605 57th St.
Apt. No. 3R
Brooklyn, New York
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on September 25, 1989 concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
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 this administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on July 28, 1988 by the tenant filing
a complaint asserting that the owner failed to maintain various
services in the subject apartment.
On August 19, 1988, the Division transmitted a copy of the tenant's
complaint to the owner.
In an answer filed on September 8, 1988, the owner denied the
allegations as set forth in the tenant's complaint and otherwise
asserted that all repairs were completed. As to vermin infestation,
the owner alleged that the tenant refuses the monthly exterminating
Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted on September 12, 1989 by a Division staff member who
reported that large areas of the bathroom ceiling and walls are
leak-damaged; that there is a defective window and missing molding
in the daughter's bedroom; that there is roach infestation
throughout the apartment; that there is a large hole in the wall of
the game room; and that there is a defective radiator valve and
missing window molding in the son's bedroom.
On September 25, 1989, the Administrator directed the restoration of
services and further ordered the reduction of the stabilized rent.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends that
the leak damage in the bathroom ceiling and walls was caused by the
tenant in the apartment above the subject apartment. The owner
submitted copies of plumbing bills and an affidavit from the plumber
indicating repairs of same. The owner further contends that the
tenant provided access to the exterminator in October 1989, i.e.
after the issuance of the order appealed from. The owner submitted
copies of bills and signature cards allegedly indicating tenant's
refusal of access in August 1989 and acknowledgment of exterminating
services in October 1989.
On February 12, 1990, the Division mailed a copy of the owner's
petition to the tenant.
In an answer filed on February 28, 1990, the tenant asserted that
repairs of the bathroom ceiling and walls were performed in December
1989, subsequent to the issuance of the order appealed from; that
these repairs are not certain to hold up; that the molding was never
installed; that roaches and mice persist in the apartment because
the exterminator's spray and poison are not working; that the hole
in the bedroom wall was plastered but never painted; and that the
radiator valve was never fixed.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
The Administrator's determination was based on an on-site inspection
report finding the existence of numerous defective conditions within
the apartment. The determination was in all respects proper and is
The owner's submissions pertinent to repairs of the conditions were
not raised in the proceeding below prior to the issuance of the
Administrator's order and are now raised for the first time on
appeal. These attachments are beyond the scope of administrative
review which is limited to the issues and evidence before the
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 Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby, is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA