ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 610061 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.:               
                                                 FJ 610061 RO
                                              :
                                                 DRO ORDER NO.:           
                                                 EA 610473 S                 
                  HERMAN STEINBERG
                                                 PREMISES: 846 East 175th    
                                                 Street, Bronx, NY
                                                  

                              PETITIONER      : 
          ------------------------------------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 September 18, 1991 
          concerning the housing accommodations relating to the above- 
          described docket number.

               The Commissioner has reviewed all of 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 January 10, 1990 by 
          filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain 
          numerous services in the subject apartment.

               In an answer filed on February 28, 1990, the owner stated that 
          "in so far as I am accumulating supporting documents and am trying 
          to make repairs, please give me a thirty (30) day extension to 
          respond." 

               In another answer filed on March 28, 1990, the owner stated in  
          substance that "all repairs ... requested by the tenant shall be 
          provided."

               Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject apartment was 
          conducted on August 13, 1991 by a DHCR staff member who confirmed 
          the existence of numerous defective conditions.















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 610061 RO



               Based on this inspection, the Administrator determined the 
          following not maintained:  "vermin control apartment, stove-door, 
          refrigerator light, refrigerator gaskets, refrigerator-freezer 
          door, refrigerator-tray, refrigerator shelves, walls bedroom 1", 
          and "refrigerator freezer temperature."  The Administrator ordered 
          a reduction of the stabilized rent.

               In this petition, the owner contends that the tenant did not 
          request a rent reduction; that services are maintained; and that 
          the tenant had withdrawn the complaint per an alleged stipulation 
          agreement dated August 30, 1990.

               In answer to the petition, the tenant denied the owner's 
          allegation that repairs were performed.

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

               In respect to the contention that the tenant did not request 
          a rent reduction, the original copy of the tenant's complaint in 
          the Administrator's file shows the tenant applying for a rent 
          reduction.  The owner's submission of a copy of the tenant's 
          complaint which does not check a rent reduction is not the best 
          evidence because it is merely a copy and of questionable value.   

               In respect to the contention of all services being maintained, 
          the owner does not make clear whether repairs were made prior to 
          inspection and the issuance of the Administrator's order, or 
          whether repairs were completed subsequent to the issuance of the   
          Administrator's order.  If it is the former, it is belied by the 
          report of the DHCR inspector.  If it is the latter, then the 
          Administrator's order was correct when issued.

               In respect to the contention that the tenant withdrew the 
          complaint per an alleged August 30, 1990 stipulation agreement, the 
          Commissioner notes that this claim was not raised in the proceeding 
          below and prior to issuance of the Administrator's order.  On the 
          contrary, the owner in the proceeding below, after receiving the 
          tenant's complaint, requested an extension; and subsequent to the 
          extension period, the owner merely answered that repairs "shall be 
          provided."  Despite ample opportunity to repair before the August 
          13, 1991 on-site inspection and the September 18, 1991 issuance of 
          the order, the owner failed to investigate the tenant's complaint 
          and make necessary repairs.  Only at the petition and not in the 












          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 610061 RO

          proceeding below, the owner raises this issue and submits an 
          alleged copy of the stipulation agreement as proof of the tenant's 
          withdrawal:  this is beyond the scope of administrative review, 
          which is limited to the issues and evidence before the 
          Administrator.   

               In addition, a careful reading of the alleged stipulation 
          agreement shows that it does not cover the basis of the order 
          appealed from, i.e. the August 13, 1991 on-site inspection finding 
          decreased services which warrant a rent reduction; and it is 
          further weakened by the fact that it is not a court-ordered 
          stipulation.

               Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator 
          properly based his determination on the entire record, including 
          the results of the August 13, 1991 on-site inspection; and that 
          pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the owner had failed to 
          maintain services.  

               This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the 
          owner's right to file the appropriate application with the Division 
          for restoration of rent based upon the restoration of services, if 
          the facts so warrant.

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

               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
                                          Acting 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