EB 810093 RT
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                            DOCKET NO.: EB 810093 RT
                                               DISTRICT RENT 
               Rosemary Camas,                 ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                               DOCKET NO.: EDD-8-1-0004-OR

                                       IN PART

          On January 30, 1990, the above-named tenant filed a petition  for
          administrative review of an order issued on December 28, 1989  by
          a   District   Rent   Administrator   concerning   the    housing
          accommodations known as apartment 3E, 155 Garth Road,  Scarsdale,
          New York, wherein the  Administrator  granted  the  owner's  rent
          restoration application.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in  the  record
          and has carefully considered that portion of the record  relevant
          to the issues raised by the petition for review.

          The original proceeding was  initiated  by  the  tenant,  by  the
          filing of a complaint of diminution in services.

          An agency inspection  of  the  subject  apartment  revealed  that
          services were not being properly maintained.

          On November 20, 1986, the District Rent Administrator  issued  an
          order, under Docket No. WE-86-S-12-S, reducing the rent based  on
          a finding of service diminutions in the subject apartment,  among
          them a defective stove and damaged flooring, inadequate fuses  in
          the living room and dining room, a defective light switch in  the
          living room, and a failure to replace tiles removed where  shower
          repairs had been completed.

          On April 5, 1989, the owner filed an application to  restore  the
          rent, under Docket No. EDD 8-1-0004-OR.  In a  later  submission,
          dated July 26, 1989, the owner stated, in pertinent  part,  that,
          regarding the defective stove, the tenant had  been  offered  the
          option of a new stove at  a  rent  increase  or  a  reconditioned
          stove without an increase.  The  owner  submitted  a  copy  of  a
          letter containing this offer,  dated  July  21,  1989,  which  it
          asserted had been sent to the tenant.

          On August 3, 1989 the District Rent Administrator mailed  a  copy
          of the owner's submission of July 26, 1989  to  the  tenant,  and
          afforded her twenty days within which  to  respond.   The  tenant
          failed to do so.

          EB 810093 RT
          By  order  issued  December   28,   1989,   the   District   Rent
          Administrator determined that the owner had  made  a  good  faith
          effort  to  provide  a  proper  working  stove  to  the   tenant.
          Regarding  linoleum  floors,  the  Administrator,  in  substance,
          determined  that  they  had  not  been  owner-installed  and   by
          implication were  not  a  required  service.   The  Administrator
          further found that all of the other service defects for which the 
          rent had been reduced were restored.  The owner was also  advised
          that those tiles removed where shower repairs had been  completed
          were to be replaced.

          In her petition for administrative review, the tenant asserts, in 
          substance, that the owner had offered  her  a  refurbished  stove
          which was larger than the one to be replaced,  which  the  tenant
          asserts would require reconstructing the surrounding area at  her
          own expense,  thus  creating  a  hardship.   The  tenant  further
          asserts that the linoleum floors are owner-installed.   Regarding
          the required electrical work and the tile work  in  the  bathroom
          the tenant asserts these installations have not  been  completed.
          Finally, the tenant asserts that two additional electric  outlets
          for the kitchen had been  promised  to  her   but  had  not  been

          The owner answers the tenant's petition asserting, in  substance,
          that the subject apartment is in above standard condition.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of  the  opinion
          that this petition for administrative review should be granted in 

          According to established principles of the administrative  review
          appeals process, a party may not raise an  issue  for  the  first
          time upon administrative review if that  issue  could  reasonably
          have  been  raised  before  the  administrator  below.   In  this
          proceeding, the record shows that the tenant,  although  she  was
          afforded an opportunity  to  submit  an  answer  to  the  owner's
          assertions regarding the offer to her of a  suitable  replacement
          stove, failed to do so.  Accordingly, the tenant may not now seek 
          to raise the issue of the suitability of the offered  replacement
          stove in the context of this administrative review proceeding.
          Regarding the linoleum floors, the Commissioner  notes  that  the
          Rent Administrator, in the rent restoration  proceeding  appealed
          herein,  improperly   disturbed   the   finding   of   the   Rent
          Administrator under Docket No. WE-86-S-12-S.  The record  reveals
          that by order issued under Docket No. WE-86-S-12-S, the  flooring
          throughout the subject apartment was found to  be  water  damaged
          and that this was a service diminution which, among other things, 
          served as a basis for  the  rent  reduction  order.   That  order
          constituted the final order of the rent agency with regard to the 
          linoleum  floors  in  the  subject  apartment.   Therefore,   the
          Administrator should not have reconsidered this issue in the rent 
          restoration proceeding below, as such reconsideration was  barred
          by the  principles  of  res  judicata  and  collateral  estoppel.
          Accordingly,  the  Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion  that   the
          Administrator's decision regarding the  linoleum  floors  in  the
          rent restoration proceeding should be revoked.

          Regarding the required electrical repairs, the Commissioner notes 
          that, in the restoration proceeding before the Administrator, the 

          EB 810093 RT
          tenant in her answer to the owner's  application,  did  not  deny
          that those repairs had been completed, although she did deny with 
          specificity  that  certain  other  items  had   been   corrected.
          Accordingly, the tenant may not now seek to raise this  issue  in
          the context of this administrative review proceeding.

          Regarding the new electrical outlets  which  the  tenant  asserts
          were promised to her, the Commissioner notes that this  issue  is
          irrelevant as it was not one of the items for which the rent  was

          Regarding the bathroom tiles, in view of the owner's  failure  to
          deny the tenant's assertion on  appeal  that  it  had  failed  to
          replace the bathroom tiles as directed by the Rent Administrator, 
          the Commissioner is of the opinion that the Rent  Administrator's
          order should be modified to find that a restoration of  the  rent
          will not be  granted  until  these  missing  bathroom  tiles  are

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the  provisions  of  the  Emergency
          Tenant Protection Act and the Tenant Protection  Regulations,  it

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  granted
          in part, and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and 
          the same hereby is, modified in accordance with  this  order  and
          opinion  so  as  to  deny  the  owner's  application   for   rent
          restoration; and it is

          FURTHER  ORDERED,  that  so  much  of  the  Administrator's  rent
          restoration order, as determined, that  the  subject  apartment's
          linoleum floors are not an a required service be,  and  the  same
          hereby is, revoked; and it is

          FURTHER ORDERED, that the owner shall refund to  the  tenant  all
          excess rent arising as a result of this order, within 30 days  of
          the issuance date of this order or the tenant  may  fully  credit
          this amount against future rents until fully credited.

          The  Commissioner  notes  that  the  owner's   rent   restoration
          application will not be granted until  the  linoleum  floors  are
          repaired and the missing tiles in the bathroom are replaced.


                                                       JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                       Deputy Commissioner


TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name