ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GG210127RO
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.:
GG210127RO
:
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
EE210730S
PREMISES:
159 Bay 29th St.
Apt. A10
Brooklyn, N. Y.
D.G.J. REALTY CORP./
HAL J. GREENE MANAGEMENT CO., INC./
MARVIN H. GREENE,
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 June 25, 1992
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 of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issues raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on May 31, 1990 by a rent-
stabilized tenant filing a complaint asserting that water leaks
from the bathroom ceiling; that the ceiling is on the verge of
falling; and that the apartment is infested with bugs and roaches.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GG210127RO
The Division sent the owner on June 11, 1990 a copy of the
tenant's complaint, and the owner filed an answer stating that he
"personally checked" the apartment and found no leak; that the
tenant refused access to allow him to repair the bathroom ceiling
to find any leak inside the ceiling; and that he is sending a
certified mail to the tenant for an access date on July 18, 1990.
On April 8, 1992, the Division requested additional
information from the tenant on whether the leaks in the bathroom
ceiling, the unpainted bathroom walls and the vermin infestation
had been corrected.
The tenant answered the Division's request that these
defective conditions continue to exist.
On June 9, 1992, an inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted by a Division staff member who reported that there are
severe water stains in the ceiling and walls of the bathroom; that
the ceiling has partially collapsed over the toilet; that there is
peeling paint and plaster in the bathroom ceiling and walls; that
water was dripping from the ceiling at the time of inspection; and
that there are many live roaches in the apartment.
Based on the inspection, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and reduced the stabilized rent.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends
in substance that the tenant refused access to repairs. The owner
also stated that there is a rent reduction order (DJ210441S) in
effect, against which the owner filed an administrative appeal
under Docket No. FB210020RO.
On August 6, 1992, the Division mailed the tenant a copy of
the owner's petition.
In answer, the tenant denied refusing access and suggested
repair dates for the owner. A copy of the tenant's answer was
mailed to the owner on September 29, 1992.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Administrator's order was based upon an on-site
inspector's report which found on June 9, 1992 defective conditions
in the subject apartment. Accordingly, the Administrator's
determination under Docket No. EE210730S was in all respects proper
and is hereby sustained.
As to the owner's allegation of tenant refusing access, the
owner submitted no proof of this allegation in the proceeding
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GG210127RO
before the Administrator under Docket Number EE210730S. This
allegation has also been denied and disputed by the tenant.
A careful search of the Division's records reveals that the
owner also alleged tenant refusing access in another petition for
administrative review (FB210020RO) of an order (DJ210441S), wherein
the owner submitted copies of proof of one certified mail (no
second regular mail) for a repair date on July 18, 1990.
The Commissioner finds that this insufficient evidence of
denied access was not submitted to the Administrator in the
proceeding below before the issuance of the order and is now
submitted for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, this
unsupported allegation is beyond the scope of administrative review
which is limited to the issues and evidence before the
Administrator.
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
|
