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.: GF410009RO


RESIDENTIAL MGMT. INC.                 DISTRICT RENT               
                                       ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                       DOCKET NO.: FK410638S

                                       PREMISES: 720 Riverside 
                                                 Drive, Apt.1A
                                                 NY, NY
                    PETITIONER                      
                       
-----------------------------------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 May 29, 1992 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 issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order was 
            warranted.

            This proceeding was commenced on November 26, 1991 by the tenant 
            filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain 
            numerous services in the subject apartment.


            On December 12, 1991, DHCR transmitted a copy of the tenant's 
            complaint to the owner.

            In an answer filed on January 9, 1992, the owner asserted that the 
            tenant refuses to allow the owner to make repairs. The owner 
            submitted no proof of scheduling access by certified mailing and 
            return reciept.

            Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the subject apartment was 
            conducted on March 24, 1992 by a DHCR staff member who reported that 
            there are severe, cracking paint and plaster and water-damaged walls 

            GF410009RO

            in the bathroom; that the toilet-bathroom hamper is severely 
            damaged, loose from the wall, and shows rust, stain and water 
            damage; that the kitchen walls have holes, needing paint and 







            plaster, an active leak in the northwest area walls, humid and wet 
            in the severe crack near the stove; and that there are numerous gaps 
            in the ceilings and walls of the living room, in the ceilings and 
            walls of the bedroom, in the ceilings and walls of the hallway, in 
            the ceilings and walls of the bathroom, and in the ceilings and 
            walls of the foyer.

            Based on this inspection, the Administrator directed on May 29, 1992 
            the restoration of services and further ordered the reduction of the 
            stabilized rent.

            In the petition for administrative review, the owner states that 
            "all repairs and painting have been completed" ; that the tenant 
            "asks for rent reductions for the same repairs constantly (see 
            docket # GD510338S)"; and that access to making repairs was acquired 
            only after a court order. The owner submitted no proof or attachment 
            to support these contentions.

            On June 10, 1992, DHCR mailed a copy of the owner's petition to the 
            tenant.

            In an answer filed on June 15, 1992, the tenant denied the owner's 
            allegations in the petition that the defective conditions have been 
            fixed.

            On August 31, 1992, DHCR mailed a copy of the tenant's answer to the 
            owner.

            In a reply dated September 9, 1992, the owner asserted that all 
            repairs, not only required by the order appealed from but also 
            requested by the tenant, have been completed.

            After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
            the petition should be denied.

            The owner does not dispute the Administrator's determination which 
            is based on an on-site inspection's finding of defective conditions 
            in the apartment. Accordingly, this determination was in all 
            respects proper and is hereby sustained.

            The Commissioner finds the owner's contentions of tenant refusing 
            access and court-ordered access without merit. The allegation that 
            the tenant refused access was not proven in the proceeding below 
            prior to the issuance of the Administrator's order  and is again 
            raised as an unsubstantiated assertion on appeal. The claim that a 
            court order was required to make repairs was not raised in the 
            proceeding below prior to the issuance of the Administrator's order 
            and is raised as an unproven assertion for the first time on appeal.

             
            The Commissioner finds the claim that all repairs have been 
            completed disputed by the tenant and unsupported in the petition. 
            GF410009RO


            The Administrator's order based on the results of the on-site 
            inspection was correct when issued; and this claim of repairs, 
            raised for the first time on appeal, is beyond the scope of 
            administrative review which is limited to the issues and evidence 
            fore the Administrator.




            The unproven assertion that the tenant asks for the same rent 
            reductions in # GD510338S was not raised in the proceeding below and 
            is now raised as a self-serving, unsubstantiated defense for the 
            first time on appeal. Likewise, this bare claim is beyond 
            the scope of administrative review.

            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






    

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