AR Docket No. FH 110107-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.: FH 110107-RO
                                                
            HARRY D. SILVERSTEIN ASSOCIATES,     DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: DI 1130053-B

                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                 87-40 165th Street, Apt. No. 6M
                                PETITIONER       Jamaica, NY 11432
          -----------------------------------X                           
            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named owner filed a timely Petition  for  Administrative
          Review of an order issued on June 25, 1991, concerning the 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 petition.

          The tenant commenced this proceeding  on  September  14,  1989  by
          filing a complaint asserting that "(t)here  are  leaks  in  roof";
          that "(s)trong rains cause damage to  apartments  on  top  floor";
          that "(a)nyone can gain access to roof"; and that "(t)here  is  no
          lock on door leading to roof."

          In its answer filed on November 14, 1989, the owner asserted  that
          the roof was repaired on October 25, 1989 and that the  roof  door
          does not require a lock because it is a fire egress.

          Thereafter on June 26, 1990, the subject building was inspected by 
          DHCR which confirmed that the "6th floor hallway  (L  to  U  side)
          outside Apartment 6U (on the) right side wall and  ceiling  (show)
          evidence of water damage"; that the "6th floor  hallway  (A  to  K
          side) corner wall left side of stairwell 'W' door has evidence  of
          water damage approximately 6 feet down from ceiling"; and that  in
          the L to U side stairwell E, the roof door was "defective," "(t)he 
          lock was open and said door was open."

          On August  2,  1990,  the  tenant  informed  DHCR  that  defective
          conditions still remain.

          The owner was informed by mail on September 4, 1990  of  the  said
          inspection report.  The owner answered on September 21, 1990  that
          waterproofing of the roof was completed on September 14, 1990.






          AR Docket No. FH 110107-RO

          The subject building  was  inspected  again  on  March  13,  1991,
          revealing that the "roof door lock is inoperative" and  that  "the
          roof door stairwell E was open at the time of inspection."

          Based on the June 26, 1990 and the March 13, 1991 inspections, the 
          Administrator found that "the roof door (L to U side stairwell  E)
          is inoperative" and that "(p)ursuant to  the  Housing  Maintenance
          Code, the roof door must be locked with either a hook and  eye  or
          sliding bolt lock."  The Administrator directed on June  25,  1991
          restoration of these services and further ordered a  reduction  of
          the stabilized rent.

          In this petition, the owner contends  in  substance  that  a  work
          order dated July 12, 1991 was made to repair  the  defective  roof
          door; that the owner was denied due process for not  allowing  the
          owner an opportunity to repair  after  the  inspection;  and  that
          there should be  no  rent  reduction  when  vandalism  caused  the
          defective roof door.

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

          The owner admits in this petition by its own documentation that  a
          work order on the defective roof door was made after the  issuance
          of the Administrator's order.   Accordingly,  the  Administrator's
          order based on the  inspections  finding  decreased  services  was
          correct when issued.

          As to the owner's allegation of denial of due process,  the  owner
          had ample opportunity to correct the  defective  roof  door.   The
          owner knew of the tenant's complaint about the defective roof door 
          for  about  two  years.   The  owner  was  also  informed  of  the
          inspection conducted on June 26, 1990.  However, the owner  admits
          in this petition by its own submitted repair receipts that  repair
          on the defective  roof  door  was  performed  only  subsequent  to
          issuance of the Administrator's order.

          As to the owner's allegation of vandalism  causing  the  defective
          roof door, the owner offered no proof in the proceeding  below  or
          in this petition.  Because the owner failed to raise this  defense
          below and now raises this unsubstantiated, self-serving  assertion
          for the first time on appeal, this allegation is also  beyond  the
          scope of review which is limited to the evidence and issues before 
          the Administrator.

          This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice  to  the  owner
          filing  an  application  for  rent  restoration   based   on   the
          restoration of services if the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is






          AR Docket No. FH 110107-RO



          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same  hereby  is,  denied,
          and that the 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