FJ 610135 RO
                                      STATE OF NEW YORK
                        DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                              OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                       GERTZ PLAZA
                                 92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                    JAMAICA, NY 11433




            ----------------------------------x
            IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE  REVIEW
            APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                                                            FJ 610135-RO

                                                    RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S      
                 CANTERBURY EQUITIES, INC./         DOCKET NO.:              
                 ANDONIS MORFESIS                   EF 610234-S

                                                    PREMISES:                
                                                                                       65 Jesup Place, 
                                     PETITIONER     Apt. 4-D, Bronx, New York
            ----------------------------------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 October 11, 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 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 
            for.

            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 
            services.

            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, 
            it is,














          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, 
            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