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.: FD110345RO
Richard Albert, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: EE110872S
PREMISES: 93-41 222 St.
PETITIONER Apt.1D, Queens Village,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review against an order issued on March 27, 1991 concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
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.
The tenant commenced the proceeding below by filing a complaint
dated May 25, 1990, asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
various services in the subject apartment.
In answer, the owner denied the allegations in the complaint and
otherwise asserted in relevant part that extermination services are
provided every fourth Tuesday of the month and that any tenant
requesting additional service may be so provided after forty-eight
(48) hours notification.
A physical inspection of the subject apartment was conducted on
March 13, 1991 by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence
of roaches in the apartment.
Based on this inspection, the Administrator directed on March 27,
1991 the restoration of services and reduced the rent by $6.00 per
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends in
substance that DHCR has established in a prior order that
professional exterminating services are available to the tenant
upon request; that the tenant never requested for these services;
that the tenant hired her own exterminating services; that the
tenant attracted vermin because of her cats and cat food; that "the
tenant has a history of manufacturing vermin evidence"; and that a
hearing is required. There are no attachments to the petition in
support of these allegations.
In answer, the tenant asserts that the owner's pest control is
ineffective because the owner failed to exterminate at the source
(the basement/compactor room, which is below the subject
apartment); and that the order is based on an inspection by "DHCR
staff who must be assumed to be competent, experienced and
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
The owner does not establish any basis for modifying or revoking
the Administrator's determination. There are no attachments to the
petition in support of these allegations. Moreover, these
assertions, which are raised for the first time on appeal, are
beyond the scope of administrative review.
The Administrator's order was properly based on a March 13, 1991
on-site inspection which confirmed the existence of roaches in the
apartment. Accordingly, the determination was in all respects
proper and is hereby sustained.
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted
by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this
Order and Opinion.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA