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.: 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     
          -----------------------------------X                           

             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 
          number.

          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 
          services.

          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 
          DJ210214RO

















          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 
          hereby sustained.

          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 
          Administrator.



          DJ210214RO







          CH110220RO

          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, 
          it is 

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby, is affirmed.

          ISSUED:


                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Deputy Commissioner