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the tenant had withdrawn the complaint per an alleged stipulation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
|