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.:
JOSE CABAN/ RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
OLGA LUZDELRIO, DOCKET NO.:
PREMISES: 448 40th Street
PETITIONER Apt. 2-L, Brooklyn, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenant filed a petition for administrative review
of an order issued on September 30, 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 of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the petition.
This proceeding was commenced on August 6, 1990 by the tenant
filing a complaint, alleging that in November 1989, he paid a
locksmith $15.00 to fix a picked door lock; that in January 1990,
he paid a locksmith $200.00 for same; that in June 1990, he paid a
locksmith again $350.00; and that the building has poor security.
In an answer filed on September 6, 1990, the owner stated that two
new locks, a chain and a peephole were installed when the tenant
moved in on October 6, 1988; that the tenant installed an addi-
tional lock in the door and changed the other locks without
permission of the owner; that contrary to the New York City
Multiple Dwelling Law, the tenant failed to give the owner keys to
all the locks in case of emergency; that services were not reduced
for the apartment; and that the tenant refused access to check the
The Administrator issued an order, determining that the facts in
the case do not warrant the relief requested; that in regard to
building security, a building-wide complaint form should be filed
by the tenant if warranted; and that in regard to reimbursement,
the tenant is advised to refer this issue to a court of competent
In the petition for administrative review, the tenant questioned
the rent increases when the owner "never did anything in the apart-
ment". The tenant also submitted a copy of an Individual Tenant
Statement of Complaint of Decreased Services from another pro-
ceeding (Docket No. DH210161S).
The Division mailed to the owner on December 9, 1992 a copy of the
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
The tenant has presented no valid issue in this administrative
appeal. The tenant's bare contention in the petition that rent
increases are questionable is unsubstantiated and irrelevant. The
Commissioner notes that the tenant has not even addressed the
issues of the order appealed from.
A careful search of the Division's records reveals that (Docket No.
DH210161S) referred to by the tenant in the petition had been
terminated on October 1, 1990, based on the tenant's September 10,
1990 withdrawal of the complaint which also alleged reimbursement
for tenant's painting of the apartment - a non-issue in this case.
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,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA