EH 420105-RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: EH 420105 RO
               MELOHN PROPERTIES                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: DF 420468 S

                    On August 10, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed 
          a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued July 9, 1990. The order concerned housing 
          accommodations known as Apt 3D located at 100 Riverside 
          Drive, New York, N.Y.  The Administrator order a rent reduction 
          for failure to maintain required 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 June 15, 1989 wherein she 
          alleged the following services deficiencies:

1.  Windows ill fitting and drafty; crackedwindow
                        panes; water leakage, flaking dust and moisture
                        around windows

2.  Ceilings and walls peeling and cracked

3.  Master bedroom and kitchen walls damp and peeling

4.  Defective refrigerator

5.  Kitchen cabinet doors do not close

6.  Closet, bedroom and bathroom doors do not close or
                        lock properly

7.  Radiators in all rooms hiss and knock

          The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded an 

          EH 420105-RO

          opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on July 20, 
          1989.  It stated that all windows were in good condition, that 
          the panes were in the process of being replaced, that there was 
          no water leakage, that the tenant had requested that the painting 
          and plastering be postponed, that the refrigerator was being 
          replaced, that the kitchen cabinet doors were adjusted, as well 
          as the closet, bedroom and bathroom doors, and that the radiators 
          were in good condition.

          The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the 
          subject apartment.  The inspection was conducted on April 26, 
          1990 and revealed the following:

1.  Air seepage from three living room, three back
                        room, one kitchen and three master bedroom
                        windows.  All are water damaged.  Main bedroom
                        middle window does not open properly.

2.  Peeling paint and plaster throughout apartment

3.  Signs of dampness and leakage in master bedroom
                        and kitchen

4.  Kitchen cabinet over sink has defective door.

          The following services were found to have been maintained:

1.  No evidence of defective refrigerator

2.  No evidence of defective doors throughout

3.  No evidence of defective radiators

          The Administrator ordered a rent reduction of 10% of the MCR plus 

          On appeal the owner states that the tenant has refused 
          access to do the required work.  The owner states that it is 
          ready to do whatever is necessary to correct the problems and 
          adds that "an addendum will be forwarded to the DHCR shortly 
          regarding the alleged air seepage from windows."

          The tenant filed a response on August 30, 1990 wherein she 
          stated that she has not denied access to the apartment and, 
          indeed, the superintendent has a key.  She also states that any 
          repairs that have been made were done in a totally unworkmanlike 

          After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be 

          EH 420105-RO

          With regard to the claim of lack of access, the Commissioner 
          notes that the scope of review in administrative review 
          proceedings is limited to facts or evidence presented to the 
          Administrator.  Since the owner did not raise this claim below, 
          it is barred from doing so at this time.  Petitioner has 
          presented no grounds upon which to overturn the order here under 
          review.  That order is, therefore, affirmed.

          THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations for 
          New York City it is 

          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
     Acting 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