EH 210187 RO
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.: EH 210187 RO
REICO INTERNATIONAL REALTY CO., DISTRICT RENT
NO.: DC 210417 S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 12, 1990 the above named petitioner owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued July 20, 1990. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt. 14 located at 255 Bergen Street
Brooklyn, N.Y. The Administrator ordered a rent reduction based
on a finding of decreased services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a Statement
of Complaint of Decrease in Services on March 20, 1989. She
complained of the following services deficiencies:
1. Apartment in need of painting.
2. Roach and rodent infestation.
3. Inadequate heat/hot water.
4. Defective radiator.
5. Kitchen plumbing leaks.
6. Kitchen ceiling leaks.
7. Defective bedroom radiator.
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded an
opportunity to respond. On April 19, 1989 the owner filed a
response wherein it stated that repairs were made and supplied a
copy of the tenant's signature on a document which stated that
the washers in the kitchen sink had been replaced and all
violations corrected. The Administrator ordered a physical
inspection of the premises. The inspection was conducted on May
23, 1990 and revealed the following:
1. Peeling paint and plaster throughout apartment and
entire apartment badly mildewed.
2. Evidence of roach infestation in kitchen.
The following services were found to be maintained:
1. No evidence of mice infestation.
2. Heat not required at time of inspection.
3. Adequate hot water.
4. Adequate water pressure in bathroom and kitchen.
5. No evidence of defective radiators.
6. No evidence of plumbing leaks in kitchen.
On July 20, 1990 the Administrator issued the order here under
review wherein a rent reduction was ordered based on the inspec-
On appeal the owner states "(T)he tenant refuses access to
the apartment and refused to pay the rent. We are willing to do
any repairs necessary." The tenant filed a response on September
24, 1990 wherein she stated that repairs had not been made and
the owner never attempted to gain access to the apartment.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
The owner's claim of denial of access is raised for the
first time in the petition and is beyond the scope of review of
administrative appeals which is limited to a review of facts or
evidence before the Administrator. In fact, in answer to the
complaint the owner claimed that repairs had been made and
submitted a work order signed by the tenant regarding certain
repairs that had been done in the apartment, establishing that
access for this purpose had been obtained. The work order,
how-ever, vaguely referred to the correction of all violations,
and was not sufficient to establish that the conditions
specifically cited in the complaint had been corrected.
The remainder of the petition, which consists of the owner's
statement that it is ready to do repairs, does not warrant
modi-fication or revocation of the Administrator's order. The
order was correct and must be affirmed. The owner may file for
rent restoration when services have been restored or the owner
can establish with documentary evidence that the tenant is
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA