FK 210349-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.:   
                                                  FK 210349-RO               

                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                    LOYDA JUCINO,                 DOCKET NO.:
                                                  FD 210249-S

                                                  PREMISES:
                                                  244 Central Ave., Apt. 3L
                                   PETITIONER     Brooklyn, 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 28, 1991, concerning the 
          housing accommodations related to the above-described docket 
          number.

          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.














          FK 210349-RO



          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 
          the bedroom.

          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 
          warranted.

          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 











          FK 210349-RO

          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,  
          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