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.: GH210179RO
TED KALLIF, DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: FJ211007S
PETITIONER PREMISES: 426 Rockaway Parkway
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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
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
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
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,
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