FH 410071 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 410071-RO 
                                                
            PAUL BRUSCO,                         DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: EK 420696-S

                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                 203 West 85th Street
                                PETITIONER       Apt. No. 5, New York, NY 10024
          -----------------------------------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 July 23, 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 the original proceeding below on November 23, 
          1990 by filing a  complaint  asserting  that  "(t)he  tile  in  my
          bathroom has not been  fixed";  that  "(w)ater  from  one  of  the
          apartments above mine came through one of the ceiling lights in my 
          kitchen ... (t)he light fixture is rusty; that the owner  came  to
          the apartment "on September 14, 1990 to fix my toilet .... I don't 
          know what he did, but I haven't been able to flush it since  ...";
          and that he spoke to the owner on August 21, 1990 and October  12,
          1990 about this matter without result.

          In its answer filed on January  2,  1991,  the  owner  denied  the
          allegations set forth in  the  tenant's  complaint  and  otherwise
          asserted that the tenant refused access.

          Thereafter on March 6, 1991, DHCR mailed to both  the  tenant  and
          the owner a Notice of Inspection (For Access),  scheduling  "10:00
          AM sharp" on March 14, 1991 for repairs, with this warning:

               "Failure of the owner and/or his  repair  persons  to  be
               present and ready to attend  the  repair  and/or  restore
               services ... will result in a determination based  solely
               on the evidence presently in the record."


          Inspection  conducted  on  March  14,  1991   revealed   defective
          conditions, namely:  broken  and  missing  tiles,  three  separate
          holes in the bathroom wall, and hole in floor by closet door.

          The owner was present.  Though duly notified to do so,  the  owner
          failed to appear at the inspection.








          FH 410071 RO

          In a statement filed with DHCR on May 30, 1991 the tenant included 
          a copy of her letter mailed to the owner, asserting  that  repairs
          had not yet been performed.

          The Administrator directed on July 23, 1991 restoration  of  these
          services and a reduction of the legal regulated rent.

          In this petition, the owner contends in substance that he "was not 
          allowed access to the apartment"; that "the holes in the  bathroom
          wall were not complained-of by the tenant"; and that "the problems 
          alleged by the tenant were of her own creation."

          In a reply dated on September 27, 1991,  the  tenant  states  that
          "repairs ha(d) been taken care of."

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

          After alleging below that tenant refused  access,  the  owner  was
          duly informed of a No Access inspection on March 19,  1991;  which
          the owner failed to attend to do repairs.  On May  30,  1991,  the
          tenant informed the owner that repairs had not yet been  performed
          and the owner also failed to act on  this  letter  of  the  tenant
          prior to issuance of the Administrator's order.

          Accordingly, the Administrator properly based its determination on 
          the entire record, including the results of  the  March  14,  1991
          inspection, that  the  owner  had  failed  to  maintain  services.
          Moreover, the owner had eight months from being  informed  of  the
          tenant's complaint until the issuance of the Administrator's order 
          to investigate the tenant's complaint and to  make  the  necessary
          repairs, but the owner failed to do so.

          As to the owner's allegations that  the  "holes  in  the  bathroom
          wall" were not in the tenant's original  complaint  and  that  the
          tenant caused the disrepairs, these allegations were not raised in 
          the  proceeding  below  and  are  now  raised  as  unsubstantiated
          assertions for the  first  time  on  appeal.   Accordingly,  these
          unproven assertions are beyond  the  scope  of  review,  which  is
          limited to the issues and evidence before the Administrator.

          It is noted that as set forth above, the tenant did complain about 
          defective tiles in the bathroom,  which  inspection  confirmed  by
          finding "three separate holes in the bathroom wall."

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and  Eviction  Regulations,
          it is








          FH 410071 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