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.:
RICHARD H. SHEA,
PETITIONER EJ 410007-OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 12, 1991, the above-named tenant filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on June 10, 1991, by a
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation known as
Apartment 8, 153 Avenue A, New York, New York, wherein rent was
restored due to a restoration of service.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues
raised by the petition for review.
On October 16, 1990 the subject owner filed an application for a
rent restoration based on its alleged restoration of services.
A copy of the owner's application was mailed to the tenant who
failed to interpose an answer thereto although he was afforded an
opportunity to do so.
On May 16, 1991 a physical inspection of the subject apartment
was carried out by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR). The inspector, in his report, noted that the conditions
were as alleged by the owner.
On June 10, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review, finding that a restoration of services had occurred
and restoring the tenant's rent to the level in effect prior to
the last rent reduction plus subsequent lawful increases. The
restoration was made effective November 1, 1990.
In his petition for administrative review the tenant requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order alleging 1) that
conditions have not been corrected, 2) that he has filed new
complaints, 3) that the effective date is earlier than the
effectuation of repairs and DHCR inspection and 4) that he has
been paying full rent since January 1991.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the tenant has offered no evidence to
substantiate any of the allegations contained in his petition.
The Commissioner further notes that none of the allegations made
in the petition were raised in this proceeding when it was
pending before the Rent Administrator and that the tenant did not
interpose any answer to the owner's application although he was
afforded the opportunity to do so. Accordingly, pursuant to
Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code, the issues now
raised by the tenant for the first time on administrative appeal
may not be considered herein.
The Commissioner further notes 1) that the effective date deter-
mined by the Rent Administrator was correct - the first rent
payment date after service of the owner's application on the
tenant 2) that the tenant's subsequent filing of new complaints
is not probative of the issues involved in the proceeding under
review and 3) that in accordance with the terms of the rent
reduction order the tenant should not have paid the full rent
before the restoration order was issued.
The Commissioner notes that while the tenant questions the find-
ings of fact the record clearly reflects those findings by virtue
of the DHCR inspection which occurred on May 16, 1991.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator
properly determined that the owner had restored services based on
the evidence of the record, including the results of a physical
inspection of the subject premises, and correctly restored the
rent of the subject accommodation.
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 Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA