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.: FL210061RO
SYDNEY CARTER, DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: FE210142S
PETITIONER PREMISES: 146 Fenimore St.,
Apt. No. 4c,
Brooklyn, NY
-----------------------------------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 November 25, 1991 concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
number.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order was
warranted.
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 this administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on May 2, 1991 by the tenant filing a
complaint which asserts that the owner failed to maintain various
services in the subject apartment. Relevant to the owner's petition,
the tenant complained that the toilet never flushes and a pale of
water has to be used all the time; that the face basin needs fixing;
and that the hall inside the aprtment is rotten, cracky and needs
fixing.
On May 14, 1991, DHCR transmitted a copy of the tenant's complaint
to the owner.
In answers filed on May 30, 1991 and June 10, 1991, the owner denied
the allegations as set forth in the tenant's complaint and otherwise
asserted that services are being provided and maintained in the
subject apartment.
FJ 630091-RO
FL210061RO
Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted on November 8, 1991 by a DHCR inspector who confirmed that
the toilet flushometer does not have adequate pressure; that the
bedroom linoleum covering is worn and torn, exposing splintering
wooden slats; that the living room wooden slats have rough surfaces
and openings between slats; that the bedroom closet door does not
close properly; that the bathroom floor linoloeum covering is
peeling at the edges; that the hall floor linoleum tiles are torn
and worn; that the kitchen linoleum covering is torn and peeling ;
that the apartment hall top wall molding by the door that leads into
the living room is missing; that the bathroom shower mixing presure
is not adequate; that the bathtub does not drain properly; that the
bathroom tank has water leak around it; that there were mice and
roach droppings in the kitchen; that the kitchen cupboard doors were
warped.
Based on the inspection, the Administrator directed on November 25,
1991 the restoration of services and further ordered the reduction
of the stabilized rent.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends in
substance that all repairs have been completed, that the tenant is
responsible for alterations in the floor/covering of the apartment,
that the tenant caused these defective conditions, and that the
defective conditions in the toilet tank and in the hallway molding
were not in the original complaint.
On January 7, 1992, DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the
tenant.
In an answer filed on January 13, 1992, the tenant asserted in
substance that the problems continue to exist despite alleged
repairs.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
The Administrator's determination was based upon a November 8, 1991
on-site inspection which confirmed the existence of numerous
defective conditions. The determination was in all respects and is
hereby sustained.
The alleged repairs by the owner were not raised in the proceeding
below prior to the issuance of the Adminstrator's order and are now
raised for the first time on appeal. In the same manner, the
allegations that the tenant caused the alterations in the floor
covering and other defective conditions are only raised for the
first time in the petition. Accordingly, these allegations are
beyond the scope of review, which is limited to the issues and
evidence before the Administrator.
2
BL 120037 RT
FL210061RO
The Commissioner finds without merit the owner's assertion that the
toilet tank and the hallway molding were not mentioned in the
original complaint. The owner was put on ample notice when the
tenant asserted in the complaint that the toilet never flushes, that
she has to use a pail of water to flush it all the time, that the
face basin needs fixing, that the halls inside the apartment are
"very rotten, cracky and need to be fixed" and that "the entire
apartment need to be fixed and renovated."
The owner filed a rent restoration application (FL210207OR) on
December 19, 1991.
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
Deputy Commissioner
3
|
