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.:
LOYDA JUCINO, DOCKET NO.:
244 Central Ave., Apt. 3L
PETITIONER Brooklyn, 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 28, 1991, concerning the
housing accommodations related to the above-described docket
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues raised
by the petition for review.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on April 5, 1991 by filing a
complaint asserting that in the kitchen, there is a leak through
the entrance door, the window is sealed, and there exists mice and
roach infestation; that the bedroom windows are cracked; that in
the living room, the ceiling is "falling and cracked", there are
leaks from the roof, and "the light bulb gets full of water due to
the leak in the living room"; and that the entire apartment is
infested with rats and roaches.
Although a copy of the tenant's complaint was mailed on April 17,
1991 to the owner, the Administrator's file does not contain any
answer from the owner.
On June 7, 1991, the tenant also submitted a copy of her letter to
Judge Gerald Banks of the New York City Housing Court, in which she
advised that the owner had not complied with the court's directive
to make certain repairs by April 22, 1991.
Thereafter on August 13, 1991, a physical inspection of the subject
apartment was conducted by a Division of Housing and Community
Renewal (DHCR) inspector who reported that "the door was wood-
splintering"; that the "door frame was splintering and rotted";
that "the kitchen window needs caulking"; that "there were roach
and rodent droppings in the kitchen area"; that "the two bedroom
window frames have evidence of being rotted" and "need caulking".
Based on the inspector's report, the Administrator ordered a reduc-
tion of the stabilized rent, listing the services not being
maintained as "door frame alignment entry", "window caulking
kitchen", "vermin control apartment" and "window sash/ frame" in
In the petition for administrative review, the owner asserts that
all violations were corrected on July 24 and 25, 1991 after the
court ordered the tenant to give access, that all repairs would
have been done in January 1991 if the tenant had given access, and
that the Administrator's order improperly reduces the rent for
items not included in the tenant's complaint.
After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, 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 facts or
evidence before the Rent Administrator unless the petitioner
establishes 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 owner did not respond to the tenant's
complaint. The concurrent proceedings in Housing Court were not
brought to the attention of the Rent Administrator by the owner and
may not be raised now for the first time on appeal as evidence
relevant to the determination of whether a rent reduction is
Section 2523.4 of the Code provides for a rent reduction, upon
application by a tenant, where it is found that the owner has
failed to maintain required services. Required services are
defined by Section 2520.6(r) to include repairs and maintenance.
The Rent Administrator properly based the rent reduction on the
results of the physical inspection which revealed that the entrance
door and the kitchen and bedroom windows required repair and that
there was vermin infestation. These were all conditions included
in the tenant's complaint.
The documents submitted by the owner with the petition merely
establish that the Court ordered the tenant to give access for
repairs on July 16, 16 and 18, 1991 and that a reinspection by the
Office of Code Enforcement was scheduled for September 9, 1991.
The results of that inspection were not submitted and any repairs
that may have been done in July did not correct the defective
conditions found by the DHCR inspector on August 13, 1991, for
which a rent reduction is warranted.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's
rights as they may pertain to an application to the Division for a
restoration of rent based upon the restoration of services, if the
facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner