EH 510222 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 510222 RO
DISTRICT RENT ORDER
Fred Leist, DOCKET NO.: EC 410454-S
Premises: 612 West 144th St.
New York, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued concerning the housing accommodations
relating to the above described docket number.
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.
On February 6, 1990, the tenant commenced the proceeding below by
filing a complaint asserting that the owner failed to maintain
the following services in the subject premises: dangerous stove;
refrigerator which leaked water since it was brought into the
premises; water leaking in the kitchen and bathroom; big hole in
the bathroom wall which exposed persons using the bathroom to
The owner failed to answer the tenant's complaint even though he
was given the opportunity to do so.
On May 17, 1990, an inspection of the subject premises was
conducted by a DHCR inspector. The inspection report stated the
following: no defects noted to the stove; no water leaks evident
in the kitchen or bathroom; no evidence of hole in bathroom wall;
no evidence of exposed plumbing or wiring; a leak which was
evident at the bottom of the refrigerator.
On July 26, 1990, the Administrator directed restoration of the
defective condition and further ordered a reduction of the
In his petition for administrative review, the owner requests
that the order here under appeal be completely reversed. In the
petition, the owner contends that on May 29, 1991, his
refrigerator service contractor made a service call to the
subject premises and checked the refrigerator drain and found no
sign of a water leak. The owner goes on to contend that there
were other service complaints alleged by the tenant, all of which
EH 510222 RO
were found to be maintained and satisfactory upon physical
inspection. In addition, the owner states that the inspection
report never stated that the refrigerator was defective and
inoperable. The owner goes on to state that he removed the
refrigerator from the subject premises and placed it in the
superintendent's apartment and after three weeks there was not
one drop of water seen.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
With respect to the owner's contention regarding the refrigerator
service call of May 29, 1991, the Commissioner notes that the
owner failed to submit this evidence while the proceeding was
pending before the Administrator even though he had ample time to
do so. The Commissioner will not entertain this defense raised
for the first time on appeal.
With respect to the owner's contentions regarding the condition
of the refrigerator and the content of the inspection report, the
Commissioner notes that the physical inspection was conducted by
a DHCR inspector, an independent observer who was not a party to
the proceeding here under review. The inspector reported that a
leak was evident at the bottom of the refrigerator. owner's
Given these facts, the Commissioner finds that the owner's
contentions regarding the refrigerator's condition and content of
the inspection report are belied by the record below.
Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the owner has offered
insufficient reason to disturb the Administrator's order, and it
should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.