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
|
