FK 410309-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 410309-RO; 
                   
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                   MICHAEL STAHL,                 DOCKET NO.:
                                                  EK 410403-S

                                                  PREMISES:        
                                                  50 Manhattan Ave.,    
                                   PETITIONER     Apt. 6-F, New York, N.Y.
          ----------------------------------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 3, 1991 concerning the housing 
          accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all 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 November 11, 1990 by filing 
          a complaint asserting, among other things, that there is mice 
          infestation in the apartment.  Attached to the complaint was a 
          Notice of Violation by the Department of Health referring to an 
          inspection on June 13, 1989 finding "old and fresh mice droppings" 
          in Apt. 6-F.

          On December 26, 1990, the owner filed an answer requesting a 
          twenty-day extension to address the tenant's complaint.

          In an answer filed on January 16, 1991, the owner alleged that 
          monthly exterminating services are provided pursuant to a schedule 
          posted in the lobby and special visits are ordered in response to 
          tenant requests for problem apartments.  The answer refers to an 
          enclosure of a schedule of the exterminator's visits over the past 
          two years which purportedly shows that special visits were made to 
          the subject apartment on May 31, August 12 and October 14, 1989.  
          No such document was submitted.










          FK 410309-RO




          On September 20, 1991, a physical inspection of the subject apart- 
          ment was conducted.  The inspector found evidence of vermin  
          infestation in the kitchen.

          Based on the inspection report, the Administrator issued an order, 
          directing restoration of services and a reduction of the stabilized 
          rent.

          In this petition, the owner asserts that the order is defective 
          because it does not state the basis for the determination.  The 
          owner again refers to the evidence of regular and special extermi- 
          nator service he claims he submitted to the Administrator with the 
          answer.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that the petition should be denied, and the Administrator's order 
          should be affirmed.

          Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code requires DHCR to re- 
          duce the legal regulated rent, upon application by the tenant, for 
          the period for which it is found that the owner has failed to 
          maintain required services.  Required services are defined by 
          Section 2520.6(r) to include exterminating services and adequate 
          ventilation.

          Pursuant to Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code, the 
          scope of review in administrative appeals is limited to a review of 
          facts or 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 issu- 
          ance of the order being appealed.

          The Commissioner notes that the tenant originally complained not 
          only of poor exterminating services but also of inadequate 
          ventilation; that the issue of inadequate ventilation has never 
          been addressed by the owner's answer in the proceeding below, the 
          September 20, 1991 physical inspection, and this petition; and that 
          the Administrator's order has not resolved the tenant's problem of 
          incinerator smoke seeping into the apartment.  However, the tenant 
          failed to raise this issue by filing a petition concerning the 
          omission of smoke seepage and this issue shall not be discussed in 
          the instant administrative appeal.

          The Commissioner finds the Administrator's order on vermin infesta- 
          tion affirmed.  Although the owner contends that he has proof of 
          exterminating schedules, the tenant signing off and the tenant's 
          "poor housekeeping", the Commissioner notes that the owner sub- 
          mitted no evidence to substantiate these contentions either while 








          FK 410309-RO


          the proceeding was pending before the Administrator or by attach- 
          ment to his petition.  The September 20, 1991 physical inspection 
          revealed the existence of vermin infestation before the issuance of 
          the order appealed from.  Accordingly, the owner has offered no 
          reason to disturb the Administrator's order.

          The Commissioner further notes that the owner's contention of the 
          tenant having no standing is without merit.  The owner offered no 
          proof that the tenant is merely a house-guest.  In fact, this 
          tenant has filed numerous dockets of applications with the 
          Division.  As long as this tenant is not lawfully evicted by the 
          owner, the tenant is covered by the rent stabilization laws.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that as to vermin infestation, 
          the Administrator properly based his determination on the entire 
          record, including the September 20, 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 main- 
          tain 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 rent based upon the restoration of services.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,  
          it is,

          ORDERED, that this petition, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          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