FH 530175 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 530175 RO 
                                                
                                                 DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
            SEYMOUR MOSLIN ASSOC. INC./          DOCKET NO.: EI 530102-B
            KENNETH MOSLIN,
                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                 655 West 160 Street
                                                 Apt. No. Various
                                                 Manhattan, N.Y. 10032
                                PETITIONER     
          ----------------------------------X                           
            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a  timely  Petition  for
          Administrative Review  of  an  order  issued  on  July  30,  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 petition.

          Various  tenants  commenced  the  original  proceeding  below   on
          September 14, 1990 by filing a complaint asserting that the  owner
          had failed to maintain certain services in the subject building.

          Although  duly  notified  of  the  tenants'  complaint  mailed  on
          September 28, 1990, the owner failed to respond to same.

          On October 2, 1990, another copy of  the  tenants'  complaint  was
          mailed to the owner, with the warning that "(f)ailure to  file  an
          answer within twenty (20) days from the  date  appearing  on  this
          notice  shall  be  considered  a  default  and  may  result  in  a
          determination based on the record presently  before  the  agency."
          The owner again failed to respond to same.

          Thereafter  on  December  12,  1990,  the  subject  apartment  was
          inspected by  DHCR  which  confirmed  the  existence  of  numerous
          defective conditions.

          In its answer filed for the first time on December 26,  1990,  the
          petitioner-owner requested an "additional ten  (10)  days"  to  do
          necessary repairs and to answer t e  complaint.   The  petitioner-
          owner stated to "(p)lease note that most of the repairs have  been
          completed."
          DHCR mailed to the petitioner-owner on January 14, 1991 a copy  of
          the inspection report.

          In response thereto, the petitioner-owner requested on January 18, 
          1991 "an  additional  twenty  (20)  days  extension  to  make  all






          FH 530175 RO

          necessary repairs ...."

          On February  11,  1991,  DHCR  notified  and  transmitted  to  the
          petitioner-owner  a  copy  of   the   tenants'   complaint.    The
          petitioner-owner failed to respond to same.

          Thereafter on March 18, 1991, the subject building  was  inspected
          by DHCR  which  confirmed  the  existence  of  numerous  defective
          conditions.

          The Administrator directed on July 30, 1991 restoration  of  these
          services and reduction of the legal regulated rent.

          In this petition, the petitioner-owner contends in substance  that
          "all the complaints have been taken care of" and that it  was  not
          previously aware  of  the  complained-of  conditions  because  the
          petitioner had just been  appointed  as  managing  agents  of  the
          receiver.   The  petitioner-owner  provided  no  proof  of   these
          contentions.

          The petitioner-owner knew  about  the  defective  conditions.   It
          filed an administrative appeal against the Administrator's order.
          Also, it filed on December 26, 1990 and January 14,  1991  answers
          to the tenants' complaint and notice of a copy of  the  inspection
          report by alleging that repairs had been performed  and  would  be
          completed.  An inspection  on  March  18,  1991  established  that
          services had not been restored.

          The petitioner-owner's unsubstantiated assertion in  the  petition
          that repairs are now completed, was not raised in  the  proceeding
          below and prior to issuance of the Administrator's order,  and  is
          now raised as an unproven assertion for the first time on  appeal.
          Thus, this assertion is beyond  the  scope  of  review,  which  is
          limited to the issues and evidence before the Administrator.  

          Accordingly,  the  Commissioner  finds  that   the   Administrator
          properly relied on the results of the December 12, 1990 and  March
          18, 1991 inspections; and that based  thereon,  the  Administrator
          properly  determined  that  the  petitioner-owner  had  failed  to
          maintain services and properly reduced the tenants' rent.

          This  Order  and  Opinion  is  issued  without  prejudice  to  the
          petitioner-owner's  filing an  application  for  rent  restoration
          based on the restoration of services.

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





          FH 530175 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:




                                                                     
                                       JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                       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