FJ 610135 RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
CANTERBURY EQUITIES, INC./ DOCKET NO.:
ANDONIS MORFESIS EF 610234-S
65 Jesup Place,
PETITIONER Apt. 4-D, Bronx, New York
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on October 11, 1991, concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
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 June 1, 1990 by filing a
complaint asserting that the owner failed to maintain services in
the subject apartment, including a failure to rid the apartment of
roaches and mice.
In is answer filed on July 24, 1990, the owner stated that the work
is "in progress per court stipulation" which was dated June 20,
1990. The stipulation provides a timetable for the removal of
various violations but does not specify what the violations were
Thereafter on September 19, 1991, a physical inspection of the
subject apartment was conducted by a Division of Housing and
Community Renewal (DHCR) staff member who confirmed the existence
of roach infestation.
FJ 610135 RO
The Administrator directed the restoration of services and further
ordered a reduction of the stabilized rent.
In this petition, the owner contends that there is a "contract with
an exterminator to maintain monthly treatments for vermin." The
owner submitted no documentation to that effect.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code, the
scope of review in administrative appeals is limited to a review of
facts of evidence that were before the Administrator unless it is
established that certain facts or evidence could not reasonably
have been offered or included in the proceeding prior to the
issuance of the order being appealed.
In the instant case, the tenant clearly included an allegation in
the complaint regarding a failure to provide exterminating
services. In answering the complaint, the owner did not address
this matter or provide any evidence that monthly service is avail-
able pursuant to a contract. The owner does not explain why such
evidence was not offered in the proceeding below, nor is it pro-
vided with the petition. Moreover, the physical inspection by the
Division revealed evidence of infestation, establishing that exter-
minator services are either not being provided or are ineffective
in correcting the problem.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly
based his determination on the entire record, including the
September 19, 1991 physical inspection; and that pursuant to
Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, a rent reduction is warranted based
on the finding that the owner has failed to maintain required
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's
rights as they may pertain to a de novo application to the Division
for a restoration of rents based upon the restoration of services.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
FJ 610135 RO
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner