STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
MORNINGSIDE PROPERTIES/ DISTRICT
VINCENT GARROW, ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET NO.:
PREMISES: 3021 Heath Ave.
PETITIONER Apt. 24, Bronx, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above named owner filed a timely Petition for Administrative
Review of an order issued on September 5, 1991, concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
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 May 21, 1990 by filing a
complaint asserting, inter alia, that "vermin and rodent
infestation are a constant sight at the apartment."
In its answer filed on May 30, 1990, the owner denied in
substance the allegations as set forth in the tenant's complaint,
and otherwise asserted that all repairs are promptly attended to
and that the exterminator serviced the tenant's apartment on May
Thereafter, the subject apartment was inspected on August 21,
1991, by a DHCR staff member who reported "mouse droppings
throughout the apartment" and "roaches in the kitchen."
Based on said inspection, the Administrator directed restoration
of services and a reduction of the stabilized rent.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the vermin
problem in the subject apartment has been eradicated. The owner
includes with the petition a letter dated September 17, 1991,
from an extermination company stating that it has been servicing
the building since December 1990 on a monthly basis and will also
make special calls, and a copy of an affirmation by the tenant
dated September 26, 1991 that the owner has corrected the
condition for which the rent was reduced.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
The owner did not submit any evidence to the Administrator to
substantiate the contention that regular exterminator service is
provided or that a special visit by the exterminator was arranged
in response to the tenant's complaint of infestation. The
physical inspection by DHCR confirmed the need for vermin control
in the apartment and the documents which the owner submits for
the first time on appeal are beyond the scope of review and do
not establish that the condition was corrected before the
Administrator's order was issued.
The owner may file an application for rent restoration based on
the restoration of services if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provision of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner