DHCR Decisions          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: DA420090/1RT                                 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 NOS.:                                                  DA420090/1RT                                                                 JOAN R. COOK                       DISTRICT RENT               RUTH L. RICHMAN                    ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET                                                  NO.: BL423831BR                                             PETITIONERS          ------------------------------------X                 ORDER AND OPINION DENYING AND MERGING PETITIONS FOR                                ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW               The above-named tenants filed timely petitions for          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing          accommodations known as 905 West End Avenue, apartments 114 and          115, New York, N.Y.               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 issue before the Commissioner is whether the          Administrator's order was correct.               The Administrator's order being appealed, BL423831BR was          issued on December 9, 1988.  In that order, the Administrator          ordered that the owner be granted eligibility for a 1988/89 Maximum          Base Rent (MBR) increase, due to the owner's meeting the violation          certification requirements necessary to the owner's being granted          an MBR increase.               On appeal, the tenants allege that various defects in their          respective apartments have not been corrected, notwithstanding the          owner's certification.  These alleged defects include (in Apartment          114): Flood damage, and peeling paint and plaster in three rooms of          the apartment.  For Apartment 115, the alleged defects include          drafty windows, lack of painting, and peeling paint and plaster in          the living room.  Additionally, the tenant of Apartment 114 alleges          that "this has been going on for years."          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: DA420090/1RT               The Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should          be denied and merged.               The Administrator's finding that a sufficient number of          violations were cleared from the subject premises is supported by          the findings of a New York City Department of Housing Preservation          and Development (HPD) investigation.  An examination of the record          reveals that none of the complained-of conditions enumerated above          were among the violations reported as either cleared or not cleared          by the HPD.  The Commissioner notes that, despite one of the          tenant's allegations on appeal that "this has been going on for          years",  there is no record of either of the tenants ever having          sought, and obtained from this agency a reduction in rent because          of the alleged conditions.               Section 2202.3(b) (2) of the New York City Rent and Eviction          Regulations requires that an owner, in order to obtain eligibility          to increase MBRs at a particular premises, must certify to the          Administrator that all essential services are being maintained at          the subject premises.  The Commissioner is of the opinion that,          although several of the allegations made on appeal (especially the          allegations of flood damage made by the tenant of Apt. 114 and the          allegations of peeling paint and plaster made by both tenants)          indicate possible reductions in essential services, for the reasons          given above, these allegations cannot be considered for the first          time on appeal.               The Commissioner notes that both tenants (Joan R. Cook and          Ruth L. Richman) occupy apartments (114 and 115, respectively) at          the subject premises.  Each tenant individually timely filed an          appeal of Administrator's order #BL423831BR, such appeal contending          that the owner had not repaired various violations in the          particular apartment, and should thus be denied eligibility to          raise 1988/89 MBRs at the subject premises.               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the above-described          appeals are, besides the different apartments and different          individual violations described, identical.  The Commissioner is,          therefore, of the opinion that these petitions should be merged and          denied since the record does not sustain the tenants' allegations.               This order is issued without prejudice to the tenants' filing          complaint(s) of reductions in service, if the facts so warrant.               THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and          Eviction Regulations, it is               ORDERED, that these petitions for administrative review be,          and the same hereby are, denied, and that the order of the Rent          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: DA420090/1RT          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.  It is also          ordered that these petitions for administrative review be, and the          same hereby are, merged.          ISSUED:                                                                                                                              JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA                                                  Deputy Commissioner