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.:
SAMUEL HITTER, DOCKET NO.:
204 West 88th St.
PETITIONER Apt. 2-E, N.Y., 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 September 26, 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 30, 1989, by filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment.
On May 11, 1989, an inspection of the subject apartment was con-
ducted by a Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) staff
member who confirmed the existence of defective conditions.
However, an answer received from the owner stated in substance that
some repairs had been made but that access was being withheld by
the tenant with respect to certain other, work.
Therefore, a No Access inspection notice was sent to the tenant and
the owner, advising them of a July 5, 1989 inspection date when the
tenant should be ready to provide access to the owner's workers and
the owner's workers should be ready to perform the repairs at that
Thereafter, a No Access inspection was conducted on July 5, 1989,
by a DHCR staff member who again confirmed the existence of various
defective conditions. The inspector also noted that no one repre-
senting the owner was present at the time of the inspection.
Subsequent to this inspection the owner submitted a letter
asserting that the No Access inspection notice was mailed to them
when they were out of town and that no one notified their agent
about the inspection. The letter again asserted that access con-
tinued to be a problem.
Therefore, a second No Access inspection notice was sent to the
tenant and owner, advising them of an August 31, 1989 inspection
date. Once again the owner was advised that his workers should be
ready to perform the repairs at that time.
A second No Access inspection was then conducted on August 31,
1989, by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of various
defective conditions. The inspector also noted that the tenant was
present but that there was no one from the owner's office present
at the inspection.
By an order dated September 26, 1989, the Administrator directed
the restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the condi-
tions specified in the Administrator's order were the result of the
tenant's own unauthorized work which the owner then had to rectify
DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant, who responded by
denying the owner's assertions.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations,
the Administrator may impose a rent reduction when there has been
a reduction in services. The owner's petition does not establish
any basis to modify or revoke the Administrator's determination
based on the various DHCR inspections which confirmed the existence
of defective conditions, warranting a rent reduction.
The Commissioner notes that the owner's contention that the speci-
fied deficiencies resulted from work performed by the tenant was
raised for the first time in this petition and is therefore beyond
the scope of review, which is limited to those facts and issues
that were before the Administrator.
Division records reveal that a rent restoration application filed
by the owner was denied on May 24, 1990, under Docket No.
DJ420161OR. A second rent restoration application filed by the
owner was also denied on April 18, 1994, under Docket No.
GC410145OR. The owner is advised to file another such application
if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations,
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