FD 630384-RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: FD 630384 RO
               GARNET MANAGEMENT CO.              DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: EH 610064 HW

                    On April 26, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed 
          a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued March 22, 1991. The order concerned housing 
          accommodations located at 3321 Bruckner Blvd, Bronx, N.Y.  The 
          Administrator ordered a building-wide rent reduction for failure to 
          maintain adequate hot water  

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 

               This proceeding was commenced on August 23, 1990 when the 
          tenants of 27 of the 70 apartments in the subject building joined 
          in the filing of a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Building- 
          Wide Services wherein they alleged, inter alia, a failure to 
          maintain adequate heat and hot water.  They attached to the 
          complaint a log showing dates between April and November 1989 when 
          there was no heat and/or hot water

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner did not file a response.      
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the 
          building.  The inspection was conducted on October 22, 1990.  The 
          inspector visited various apartments and reported hot water 
          temperature varying from 85 degrees to 100 degrees.  The inspector 
          also noted that heat was not required to be provided at the time of 
          the inspection.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on March 
          22, 1991.  The inspector's report was cited as the basis for 
          ordering a rent reduction for all rent regulated tenants.

          FD 630384-RO

               On appeal the owner, through counsel, states that:

                    1.   The tenants' complaint was not sufficiently 
                         detailed regarding dates and times wherein there 
                         was not adequate heat/hot water

                    2.   The agency failed to serve a copy of the inspection 
                         report on the owner and afford it 21 days to make 

                    3.   The owner made repairs prior to the issuance of the 
                         order here under review and as a result of such 
                         efforts to ascertain the problem with the boiler, a 
                         rent cut is not warranted                     

               Twenty-six tenants filed responses and requested that the 
          order here under review be affirmed citing continued hot water 
          problems.  The owner filed a reply on December 20, 1991 and 
          enclosed bills from a plumbing contractor.  The owner stated that 
          these bills showed that hot water had been turned off in order to 
          fix leaks in various apartments. 

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

               The Commissioner notes that the owner did not respond to the 
          complaint although afforded an opportunity to do so.  It is settled 
          law that an administrative appeal is not a de novo proceeding and 
          the Commissioner may only consider facts or evidence presented to 
          the Administrator unless such facts or evidence could not have been 
          offered below.  Since the owner did not present to the 
          Administrator the repair bills that it had in its possession and 
          submits with the petition, or any other evidence or defenses in 
          response to the complaint, these claims are beyond the scope of 
          review of this appeal.  

               With regard to the owner's assertion that it was entitled to 
          service of a copy of the inspection report, the Commissioner has 
          held that there is no such requirement and the service of the 
          complaint puts the owner on adequate notice of the existence of the 
          conditions and the need for correction thereof.  The courts have 
          upheld the Commissioner's ruling (see Empress Manor Apartments v. 
          DHCR 147 A.D.2d 642, 538 N.Y.S.2d 49 [2nd. Dept., 1989]).

               The Commissioner notes that the owner has applied for rent 
          restoration and said application was granted on February 6, 1992 
          (see Docket No FE 630169 OR)
               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and 
          Rent and Eviction Regulations it is 
               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 

          FD 630384-RO

          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