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

          APPEAL OF                             DOCKET NO.: GI110027RO 
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                DOCKET NO.: FJ110439S       
          104 Realty Co./Jacob Kempler                                      
                                                PREMISES: 104-25 195th St.,
                                                          Apt. #2B
                                                          Hollis, N.Y.

               The above-named owner filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued on August 21, 1992 
          concerning the housing accommodations relating to the above- 
          described docket number.

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

               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 October 17, 1991 by a rent- 
          stabilized tenant filing a statement of complaint of decrease in 
          services, asserting that the owner failed to maintain numerous 
          services in the subject apartment.

               On October 23, 1991, the Division transmitted a copy of the 
          tenant's complaint to the owner.

               In an answer filed on November 19, 1991, the owner asserted 
          that although it was unable to gain access before November 12, 
          1991, repairs were completed.  The owner alleged that the tenant 
          acknowledged that all the complained of conditions had been 



               On January 16, 1992, an on-site inspection of the subject 
          apartment was conducted by a Division staff member who reported 
          that the toothbrush holder was broken; that the bathtub soap dish 
          was broken; that there are three (3) tiles missing by the bathtub; 
          that the plastering and painting of the living room is of poor 
          workmanship; that three (3) wall tiles in the bathroom need 
          grouting; that there is no window guard in the bathroom window; and 
          that the intercom is defective and cannot buzz people in.

               Another on-site inspection was conducted on April 20, 1992 by 
          a Division employee who reported that there is a child under ten 
          (10) at the time of inspection and that there is no window guard in 
          the bathroom.

               Based on these inspections, the Administrator directed the 
          restoration of services and ordered the reduction of the stabilized 

               In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends 
          that the tenant unreasonably refused access.  There are no 
          attachments to the petition supporting this contention.

               On September 18, 1992, the Division mailed a copy of the 
          owner's petition to the tenant.

               In an answer filed on September 23, 1992, the tenant denied 
          refusing access, and otherwise asserted that she has always been at 
          home on maternity leave; that she waited several times for repair 
          people who never came; and that she also gave the keys to neighbors 
          who can testify that repair people failed to keep appointments.

               On October 6, 1992, the Division mailed a copy of the tenant's 
          answer to the owner.

               In a reply filed on October 22, 1992, the owner submitted a 
          copy of a September 4, 1992 letter from the intercom repair 
          company, stating that the tenant in the subject apartment had 
          refused access on the scheduled date of repairs.

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

               The Administrator's determination was based upon two on-site 
          inspections which found defective conditions within the apartment.  
          The determination was in all respects proper and is hereby 




               Petitioner's contention regarding access is raised for the 
          first time on appeal and subsequent to the issuance of the 
          Administrator's order.  As such, it is beyond the scope of 
          administrative review which is limited to the issues and evidence 
          before the Administrator.

               The owner has raised no other valid issue in the petition.  
          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly 
          based his determination on the entire record, including the results 
          of the two inspections; and that based thereon, the Administrator 
          correctly determined that the owner had failed to maintain services 
          and properly reduced the rent.

               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