STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: GH210179RO      
               TED KALLIF,                       DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: FJ211007S            
                                PETITIONER       PREMISES: 426 Rockaway Parkway
                                                           Apt. B3
                                                           Brooklyn, NY      


          The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative 
          review of an order issued on July 29, 1992 concerning the housing 
          accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.  

          The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order was 

          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 this administrative appeal.

          This proceeding was commenced on October 28, 1991 by the tenant 
          filing a complaint which asserts that the owner failed to maintain 
          various services in the subject apartment.

          On December 17, 1991, DHCR transmitted a copy of the tenant's 
          complaint to the owner.

          In an answer filed on January 7, 1992, the owner denied the 
          allegations as set forth in the tenant's complaint and otherwise 
          asserted that except for some "touch up work" and painting of the 
          room, there is new plumbing, new bathroom tiles, new fixtures and 
          newly repaired hallway floors in the apartment.  The owner stated 
          that he will notify DHCR when the "touch up work" and painting have 
          been done.

          On April 28, 1992, DHCR mailed a copy of the owner's answer to the 


          Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the subject apartment was 
          conducted on May 6, 1992 by a DHCR inspector who reported that the 
          refrigerator is cracked in the inside and the door gaskets are worn 
          down; that the ceiling of bedroom 1 has water stains near the window 
          and the riser pipe; that the floor in the hallway is defective and 
          has rotten woodstrips; that the living room ceiling has water stains 
          near the left side window; that there is a long crack across the 
          living room wall; and that there were live roaches in the kitchen.

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

          In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends in 
          substance that the owner performed all necessary repairs; that the 
          conditions found by inspection were a re-occurence; that the tenant 
          refused to permit the living room to be painted, refused the 
          replacement refrigerator and did not permit the exterminator to 
          enter the apartment. The owner submitted copies of affidavits from 
          repair people to support his contentions.

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

          The Administrator's determination was based on a May 6, 1992 
          physical inspection which confirmed the existence of numerous 
          defective conditions. The determination was in all respects and is 
          hereby sustained.

          The affidavits to show repairs and tenant's refusal to have the 
          living room painted, to accept the replacement refrigerator and to 
          allow the exterminator in the apartment were not before the 
          Administrator in the proceeding below prior to the issuance of the 
          order and are now submitted for the first time on appeal. 
          Accordingly, these contentions are beyond the scope of review which 
          is limited to the issues and evidence before the Administrator.

          The claim that the defective conditions found by inspection were a 
          re-occurrence is without merit. The record below establishes that 
          the owner did not finish the work and failed to inform DHCR, as he 
          promised in his January 7, 1992 answer, what "touch up work" and 
          painting have been done.

          The owner has filed a rent restoration application  under Docket No. 


          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.


                                          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