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.: FL610054RO
DOCKET NO.: FD610282S
RICH REALTY CO.,
PREMISES: 1718 Grand Ave.,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued on September 26, 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.
This proceeding was commenced on April 5, 1991 by the tenant
filing a complaint asserting that the owner failed to maintain
numerous services in the subject apartment.
On April 18, 1991, the Division transmitted a copy of the
tenant's complaint to the owner.
The owner filed an answer, stating that the access date for
the work to begin would be in the third week of May 1991 and that
a tenant's acknowledgment would be sent when work is completed.
On July 9, 1991, an on-site inspection of the subject
apartment was conducted by a Division staff member who found that
only two out of ten complained of conditions were not repaired by
the owner, namely the defective alignment of the bathroom door
frame and the defective caulking of the living room window.
On August 23, 1991, the Division mailed to the owner a
"Request for Additional Information/Evidence", stating that because
the two remaining defects are minor, the complaint will be
dismissed if the owner will repair these items within 21 days.
On September 26, 1991, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a reduction for the stabilized
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends
that repairs were performed prior to the issuance of the
Administrator's order. The owner submitted a copy of a work order
dated September 13, 1991 relating to repair of the glass frame,
which was allegedly sent by certified mail to the Administrator.
On April 26, 1993, the Division mailed a copy of the owner's
petition to the tenant.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that this petition should be denied.
The owner does not dispute the Administrator's determination
which was based upon a staff inspector's report which found
defective conditions within the apartment., Accordingly, the
determination was in all respects proper and is hereby sustained.
The Commissioner finds that the owner's evidence (a September
13, 1991 copy of a work order and attachments) is insufficient to
show that this evidence was before the Administrator in the
proceeding below. Although the owner alleged certified mailing,
the owner produced no evidence of a return receipt. The alleged
evidence itself indicated only "glass frame" repairs, but there is
no indication whether the bathroom door is now properly aligned
with the frame and whether there is no more moisture between the
glass panes of the living room window.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is,
ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and
the same hereby is, denied, and that the Administrator's order be,
and the same hereby is, affirmed.
Joseph A. D'Agosta