STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
3464 Knox Place
Bronx, 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 May 2, 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 the petition.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on December 8, 1988 by filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment.
There is nothing in the record indicating that the owner submitted
On February 13, 1989 and April 13, 1989 inspections of the subject
apartment were conducted by DHCR staff members who confirmed the
existence of defective conditions.
By an order dated May 2, 1989, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction. This order
also stated that the owner had failed to submit an answer.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that an answer
was, in fact, submitted and furthermore, that they were prevented
from making the repairs as a result of the tenant's failure to
remove three allegedly vicious dogs from the apartment. The owner
submitted a copy of the answer, which referred to the problems with
the dogs, together with supporting letters concerning this issue,
with this petition.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
A careful review of the record reveals no indication or evidence
that the owner submitted an answer in response to the tenant's
complaint. The Commissioner notes that although the landlord
submitted a copy of a purported answer with this petition, the
submitted document does not contain any date stamp from DHCR
acknowledging receipt or any other evidence indicating that it was
received by the agency or mailed by the owner. Accordingly, the
Commissioner deems the petitioner's assertion regarding this issue
to be without merit.
As a result, all of the additional assertions contained in the
owner's petition are being raised for the first time on this appeal
and are therefore beyond the scope of review, which is limited to
those issues and evidence that were originally before the
Administrator. The Commissioner further notes that all of the
documents submitted by the owner were submitted for the first time
with this petition and so are also beyond the scope of review.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is
authorized to order a rent reduction, upon application by a tenant,
where it is found that an owner has failed to maintain required
services. The owner's petition does not establish any basis to
modify or revoke the Administrator's determination based on the
February 13, 1989 and April 13, 1989 inspections which confirmed
the existence of defective conditions, warranting a rent reduction.
The rent will be restored only when an owner's application to
restore the rent is filed and granted. The owner is advised to
file such an application if the facts so warrant.
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
and Operational Bulletin 84-1, 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,
LULA M. ANDERSON