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.: GD610208RO
JAHIL CORP. RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 22, 1992 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued April 3, 1992. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt 3A located at 201 East Mt. Eden Avenue,
Bronx, N.Y. The Administrator directed restoration of services and
ordered a reduction of the maximum stabilized rent.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The tenant commenced this proceeding on July 9, 1990 by filing
a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein she
alleged, in sum, that the owner was failing to maintain certain
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded
an opportunity to respond. The owner failed to file a response.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on March 13, 1992 and
revealed that no hot water was provided in the bathroom sink, that
the sink pipes were not connected, that the living room ceiling is
not level and the plastering done on the ceiling was not sanded.
The inspector also reported that there was no evidence of
defective window locks and no evidence of leaks and stains in the
The Administrator issued the order here under review on April
3, 1992 and ordered a rent reduction of an amount equal to the most
recent guideline adjustment based on the report of the DHCR
On appeal the owner states that it has been denied due process
in that the complaint was never served on it and that it had no
notice of this proceeding. The owner also states that the tenant
has filed numerous prior complaints seeking rent reductions based
on the failure to maintain required services and that the
complaints were denied. Finally, the owner stated that the tenant
was not providing access for repairs to be done. The petition was
served on the tenant on May 1, 1992.
The tenant filed a response on May 18, 1992 and stated that
the owner's allegations were false. The owner, through counsel,
filed a reply on May 7, 1992 and stated that the repairs to the
apartment had been completed by the superintendent and that the
tenant requested that this proceeding be withdrawn.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the complaint was properly served
on the registered owner at the correct address as set forth in the
agency's records. The owner did not file an answer to the
complaint. The scope of review in an administrative appeal is
limited to facts or evidence submitted to the Administrator unless
it is shown that such facts or evidence could not have been
provided. The owner has not made any such showing and has not
presented any facts to excuse the failure to respond. Therefore,
the Commissioner is barred from considering any of the arguments
raised by the owner.
The Commissioner does find, however, that the Administrator's
order was based on the on-site physical inspection of the apartment
and that numerous prior decisions of the Commissioner have held
that the inspector's report is entitled to more probative weight
than the allegations of a party to the proceeding. The
Commissioner further notes that a review of the other proceedings
referred to by the owner concern different conditions or a
different time period and therefore do not establish that the order
here under review should be modified or revoked.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code an
owner may apply to the DHCR for a rent reduction and the
Administrator shall reduce the rent based on a finding that the
owner has failed to maintain services. Repairs and maintenance are
included within the statutory definition of required services. The
Commissioner finds that the owner based this determination on the
entire record including the results of the on-site physical
inspection described above. The order here under review is
The Commissioner notes that the owner filed an application for
rent restoration with the DHCR and that this application is
currently pending (Docket No. GF610162OR).
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that
resulted by the filing of this petition for administrative review
is vacated upon the issuance of this order and opinion.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA