STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433



          -----------------------------------X

          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: GA210040R0 
                                                                      
          755 Ocean Realty/
          J.K. Management/Jacob Kempler,          RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: FB210447S      
                                                     

                          PETITIONER              PREMISES:  Apt. 6G
                                                             755 Ocean Ave.  
                                                             Brooklyn, NY
          -----------------------------------X                           


             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative 
          review of an order issued on December 18, 1991 concerning the 
          housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket 
          number.

          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 February 11, 1991 by a tenant 
          filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain 
          various services in the subject apartment.

          In an answer filed on March 25, 1991, the owner denied the 
          allegations in the complaint or otherwise asserted that repairs had 
          been performed. The owner attached  copies of a December 6, 1989 and 
          March 21, 1990 work orders indicating that the lights, the outlets, 
          the sink, the ceiling, the smoke alarm had been checked; the mildew 
          was removed; and the entire apartment was painted.

          On November 29, 1991, a physical inspection of the subject apartment 
          was conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported that the ceiling 
          and walls of the hallway closet next to the main bathroom are water-
          GA210040RO














          stained due to leaks from the roof; that three other hallway closets 
          are cracking and peeling paint; that the master bedroom ceiling and 
          walls are water-stained, blistered and peeling paint and plaster; 
          that the dining room ceiling was improperly painted, partly 
          plastered, not sanded before painting; that the kitchen ceiling is 
          cracking; that the living room ceiling is cracking, improperly 
          sanded before painting; that the second bedroom ceiling is cracking; 
          that the apartment entrance door frame is broken; that the door lock 
          apartment entry is broken; that the door apartment knob is missing; 
          that the door apartment latch is missing;  that the apartment door 
          panel is loose; and that there are roaches and mice in the kitchen.

          By order dated December 13, 1991, the Administrator directed the 
          restoration of services based on the inspection results and further 
          ordered a reduction of the stabilized rent.

          In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends that 
          DHCR never physically inspected the apartment and that the 
          Administrator ignored the copies of signed work orders concerning 
          the apartment. The owner attached copies of two signed work orders 
          submitted in the proceeding below and three unsigned, undated work 
          orders for the first time on appeal.

          In answer, the tenant questioned ever signing these work orders and 
          listed seven defective conditions as a result of unworkmanlike 
          repairs.

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

          The owner's petition fails to rebut the Administrator's 
          determination based on the November 29, 1991 on-site inspection 
          finding numerous defective conditions in the apartment. The record 
          clearly shows that the Administrator considered the alleged copies 
          of signed work orders and thereafer scheduled the on-site inspection 
          which contradicted many of the alleged repairs in the work orders. 
          Accordingly, the order appealed from was in all respects proper and 
          is hereby sustained.

          The three unsigned, undated and questionable copies of work orders 
          submitted for the first time on appeal fail to disturb the results 
          of the on-site inspection. In addition, these papers are beyond the 
          scope of administrative review which is limited to the issues and 
          evidence before the Administrator.

          The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted  
          by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this 
          Order and Opinion.


          GA210040RO








          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.






          ISSUED:






                                                                             

                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  Deputy Commissioner