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.: GG220056RO
FAZIO REALTY CORP., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: FB220160OR
PETITIONER PREMISES: 9507 Kings Highway
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on June 26, 1992 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 by the owner filing an application to
restore rent based on the restoration of services.
DHCR mailed a copy of the application to the tenant.
On September 6, 1991, a physical inspection of the subject apartment
was conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported that the freezer
door was loose and shaky; and that the freezer temperature at that
time was 20@F.
Another physical inspection was conducted on May 20, 1992 by a DHCR
staff member who reported that the peephole of the apartment
entrance door was missing a cover; the temperature of the frozen
food compartment of the refrigerator was 25@F; and the fresh food
compartment temperature was 40@F.
By an order dated June 26, 1992, the Administrator denied the
application to restore rent based on the restoration of services.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends in
substance that the tenant caused the defective conditions by
removing the peephole cover and breaking the refrigerator.
In answer, the tenant denied the allegations in the petition.
In reply, the owner asserted that the new peephole in the apartment
did not come with a cover and the tenant refused access to the
refrigerator mechanic. Attached to the reply was a copy of a
statement from the mechanic who alleged attempting to gain access on
August 31, 1992.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
The Administrator's determination was based on physical inspections
which confirmed that defective conditions were not restored,
warranting the denial of the rent restoration application. The
determination was in all respects proper and is hereby sustained.
The unsubtantiated allegations that the new peephole in the
apartment did not come with a cover and the tenant refused access to
the refrigerator mechanic were not raised in the proceeding below
prior to the issuance of the Administrator's order, and are now
raised for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, these assertions
are beyond the scope of administrative review which is limited to
the issues and evidence before the Administrator.
Another rent restoration application (GC210264OR) was denied on
December 8, 1992.
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