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.:
GARY ROSS, DOCKET NO.:
26-28 Leroy St.
PETITIONER New York, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely Petition for Administrative
Review (PAR) of an order issued on May 18, 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 the petition.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on March 17, 1988, by filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment.
In answer, the owner asserted that the required services are
provided and that the tenant needs to allow access. No evidence or
documentation was provided by the owner with his answer.
By notice mailed to the parties on March 30, 1989, a "No Access
Inspection" was scheduled for April 6, 1989.
On April 6, 1989, an inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted by a Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)
staff member who confirmed the existence of defective conditions by
finding evidence of roach infestation in the subject apartment.
The inspector noted that there was no evidence that extermination
services were being provided.Both the owner and tenant were present
at this inspection.
By an order dated May 18, 1989, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that extermina-
tion services are provided and that the tenant is obligated to
avail himself of this service. A letter from an extermination
company dated April 5, 1988, was attached with the petition.
On September 15, 1989, DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
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
April 6, 1989 inspection which confirmed the existence of defective
conditions, warranting a rent reduction. The issue of denied
access was unsubstantiated by the owner in the proceeding below
before the Administrator.
The Commissioner notes that the letter from the exterminator is
dated April 5, 1988, which predates the DHCR physical inspection by
a full year, and as such fails to disturb the findings of the
physical inspection. In addition, this letter was submitted for
the first time with this petition and so is beyond the scope of
review, which is limited to the facts and evidence originally
before the Administrator; it may not be considered now for the
first time on administrative appeal.
The owner is advised to file a rent restoration application if the
facts so warrant.
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted
from the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this
Order and Opinion.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabiliza-
tion 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