STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
----------------------------------x S.J.R. NO.: 6326
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
GISELLE GUERRE, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
UPON REOPENING & RECONSIDERATION, COMMISSIONER AFFIRMS PRIOR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 31, 1992, the Deputy Commissioner issued an order
denying the tenant's petition for administrative review (PAR) of
Rent Administrator's order, dated June 18, 1991, concerning the
housing accommodation known as 110 Morningside Drive, Apartment 53,
New York, New York, wherein the Administrator had dismissed the
tenant's complaint of a decrease in individual apartment services,
based on a finding that the tenant had failed to submit information
requested by the Administrator.
Thereafter, the tenant commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court
pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
Pursuant to a Stipulation of Settlement dated August 21, 1992, the
petitioner-tenant and the Deputy Commissioner, by his attorney,
consented to remand the proceedings to the Division for further
review and consideration of the tenant's administrative appeal.
The tenant's complaint filed on September 21, 1990 alleged that the
owner had failed to maintain the premises with respect to plas-
tering and painting and the tri-annual painting, the installation
and replacement of electrical equipment, defective windows, and
On April 12, 1991, the owner filed an extensively documented
response setting forth that the majority of the conditions had been
addressed and that, as to the remaining conditions, the owner's
inability to complete repairs on a timely basis resulted because of
the tenant's refusal to provide access on several occasions. The
owner's response included signed work orders, invoices, and an
affidavit by the owner's employee that repairs had been completed.
The Administrator's notice to the tenant, dated April 18, 1991,
noted that the "landlord replied that they had completed all
repairs", and that there was a copy of the letter which stated
"everything is fixed", and requested the tenant to"confirm or deny
that this is a true copy of your signature" on the attached work
The examiner's progress sheet reflects an entry for April 18, 1991,
setting forth that the "landlord has replied that they have
completed all repairs. Mailed letter to tenant for additional
information and copy of work order signed by the tenant".
The tenant responded that the Administrator's request failed to
submit a "copy of letter stating that everything is fixed", and
that a "complete answer will be forwarded upon receipt of said
On June 12, 1991, the Administrator issued the order denying the
On appeal, the tenant requested the Administrator to reverse the
determination asserting that she was unable to gather and verify
the necessary documents because she was involved in Court proceed-
ings with the owner, but would satisfy the request for information
at a future date.
On January 31, 1992, the Commissioner denied the tenant's appeal on
the grounds that the petition failed to set forth any errors of law
or fact in the Administrator's order below, and that neither the
tenant's answer below nor the tenant's appeal contested that the
owner had addressed the conditions alleged in the complaint.
The Commissioner's order also pointed out that the tenant had been
granted rent abatements for similar conditions in an order dated
December 21, 1990 under Docket No. DJ520731S (inadvertently cited
incorrectly as DJ520908S) based on inspections conducted on May 23,
1990 and June 20, 1990. The Commissioner also observed that the
rent had not been restored, and that the determination was under
administrative appeal by both the owner and the tenant.
On remand from the Court, by a notice dated March 2, 1993, the
tenant was requested to comment on documents from the owner's
answer in the proceedings below, herein under appeal.
The tenant was provided and was requested to address the owner's
affidavit dated April 10, 1991, detailing repairs to the kitchen
door lock and an invoice dated November 9, 1990 showing installa-
tion of a bathroom light fixture. The tenant was also requested
to confirm or deny that the signatures on a work order dated
February 4, 1991 acknowledging adequate completion of a tri-annual
painting, and on a work order dated February 15, 1991 acknowledging
the closing of kitchen floor and ceiling holes, were true copies of
The tenant was not requested to comment as to the remaining com-
plaints because rent reductions in the amount of $33.00 were
already in effect pursuant to the December 21, 1990 order per
Docket No. DJ520731S for cracked and peeling paint in the bedroom,
a loose wall molding, defective windows and a defective electric
box in the hall. The order also reflected that there was no
evidence of defective wiring or defective floors throughout the
apartment, no evidence of leaks, and no evidence of a defective
breaker box. The tenant had also filed another complaint on
December 28, 1990 processed per Docket No. EL420540S that also
cited ceilings flooding throughout the apartment. On March 13,
1992 the Administrator granted the tenant a prospective $5.00 rent
abatement for a defective ceiling in one bedroom, due to a leak
emanating from the apartment above.
On March 20, 1993 the tenant responded to the request of March 2,
1993. The tenant confirmed that the signatures appearing on the
work order forms were true signatures. However, the tenant's
remaining comments were not directed to the conditions and
documents specified in the request.
Although requested to comment on the kitchen door lock condition,
the tenant cites problems with a bedroom door during the summer of
1992, and current problems with closing the front door.
With respect to the bathroom light fixture, the tenant merely notes
that the fixture broke in March 1993, and that she would have
preferred the November 1990 installation to have been above the
mirror rather than on the ceiling.
The tenant also complains about bedroom ceiling leaks in 1992,
which was after the date of the Administrator's order herein under
review, and cites a defective bedroom window in March of 1993. As
previously noted, the tenant has already obtained rent reductions
for several defective windows, as well as a rent reduction for a
defective bedroom ceiling due to leaks, granted on March 13, 1992
per Docket No. EL420540S.
Most of the tenant's comments concern new claims. However, since
administrative appeal is strictly limited to a review of the record
below, the tenant's new claims may not be considered herein.
Moreover, the entire record reveals that, alternatively, the tenant
acknowledged repairs, or reiterated conditions for which rent
reductions had been granted and remained outstanding, or for which
no evidence was found upon inspection or were found to have been
rectified, or for which rent reductions were obtained under other
Consequently, there is no basis to revoke and reconsider the Admin-
istrator's determination below, denying further rent reductions.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is,
ORDERED, upon reopening of the administrative review proceedings
for reconsideration, that the petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed, as previously provided.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA