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.: GF410009RO
RESIDENTIAL MGMT. INC. DISTRICT RENT
DOCKET NO.: FK410638S
PREMISES: 720 Riverside
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
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
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
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
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
In an answer filed on June 15, 1992, the tenant denied the owner's
allegations in the petition that the defective conditions have been
On August 31, 1992, DHCR mailed a copy of the tenant's answer to the
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.
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,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA