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.: GI110027RO
DOCKET NO.: FJ110439S
104 Realty Co./Jacob Kempler
PREMISES: 104-25 195th St.,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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
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
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
Joseph A. D'Agosta