Docket Number: FG 610225-RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433


          ----------------------------------X 
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE    ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: FG 610225-RO 
                                                
                                                 DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
             LEKA PALUSHAJ,                      DOCKET NO.: EE 610040-S
                                             
                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                 2905 Grand Concourse, Apt. 2A
                                PETITIONER       Bronx, NY 10458
          ----------------------------------X                           
            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On July 24, 1991, the above-named owner filed  a  timely  petition
          for administrative review of an order  issued  on  July  1,  1991,
          concerning t e  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 administrative appeal.

          This proceeding was commenced on  May  3,  1990  when  the  tenant
          filed a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to  maintain
          certain services in the subject apartment.

          Although mailed a copy of the tenant's complaint on May  22,  1990
          and requested to respond to same, the owner failed to do so.

          Thereafter on July 18, 1990, the subject apartment  was  inspected
          by DHCR which confirmed the existence of defective conditions.

          In a statement filed with DHCR on February 26,  1991,  the  tenant
          asserted that defective conditions still exist.

          On April 25, 1991, a copy of  the  tenant's  complaint  was  again
          transmitted to the owner, along with a final notice to respond  or
          to risk presumption  that  the  owner  agrees  with  the  tenant's
          complaint.


          Again, on June 10, 1991, the subject apartment  was  inspected  by
          DHCR which confirmed the same decreased services existing.

          Based on said inspections and upon the owner's failure  to  refute
          the tenant's allegations, the Administrator directed  on  July  1,
          1991 restoration of these services and further ordered a reduction 
          of the stabilized rent.

          In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the  tenant
          refused access as proven by a court order on April 25, 1988;  that






          Docket Number: FG 610225-RO

          the tenant caused the disrepair; and that the tenant is liable for 
          non-payment of rent and other lawful increases of rent since 1987.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is  of  the  opinion
          that this petition should be denied.

          The owner's contentions of tenant  refusing  access,  causing  the
          disrepair and not paying rent are without merit.   These  defenses
          were not raised in the proceeding below or before the issuance  of
          the Administrator's order and are  only  raised  as  self-serving,
          unproven assertions for the first time  on  appeal.   Accordingly,
          these defenses are beyond  the  scope  of  administrative  review,
          which  is  limited  to  the  issue   and   evidence   before   the
          Administrator.

          Accordingly, the owner has failed to offer  sufficient  reason  to
          disturb the Administrator's order based on  two  inspections  dis-
          closing defective conditions and the  owner's  failure  to  refute
          the tenant's allegations.

          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.

          ISSUED:




                                                                        
                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          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