GB 130207 RO
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.: GB 130207 RO
SAVCO REALTY CORP. DISTRICT RENT
NO.: EH 130005 RP
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 10, 1992 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued January 6, 1992. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 43-31 45th Street, Sunnyside,
N.Y. The Administrator issued an order pursuant to remand which
stated, inter alia, that the agency's inspectors were not equipped
to check the adequacy of electrical wiring.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The procedural history of this proceeding is set forth in the
order of the Commissioner bearing Docket No. CA 130284 RO issued on
July 25, 1990. In that order, the Commissioner remanded the
proceeding to the Administrator's solely on the issue of defective
electrical wiring. The Commissioner also made certain findings
with respect to the objections raised by the owner regarding the
balance of the Administrator's order.
Pursuant to the direction of the Commissioner the
Administrator issued an Notice of Proceeding to Reconsider Order
Pursuant to Remand on November 7, 1990. The Notice was served on
the owner and the tenants. Both parties were given an opportunity
to respond. The owner, represented by counsel, responded on
November 28, 1990 and requested an extension of time to answer. On
December 20, 1990 the owner filed a response wherein it stated that
the building was built in 1933 and is not necessarily equipped to
handle all the appliances the tenants use. The owner also stated
that there are adequate safety features to prevent an overload and
that it was in the process of obtaining proof that the wiring was
in sound condition. The owner then proceeded to request numerous
GB 130207 RO
additional extensions of time to file an additional response. Each
request was granted until the Administrator determined that no
further extension of time would be granted after July 18, 1991.
The tenants did not file responses to the notice.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
January 6, 1992. With regard to the electrical wiring issue the
"Regarding further processing of tenants' complaint of
the electrical wiring it is noted that the Agency
inspectors are not equipped to check the adequacy of
wiring. Therefore, the tenants with specific problems
may refile individual service applications."
The balance of the order here under review incorporated the
findings made by the Commissioner in the order bearing Docket No.
CA 130284 RO. The Commissioner notes, as stated above, that the
Administrator had no discretion to find otherwise with respect to
any issue other than electrical wiring since no other issue was
remanded for consideration.
The owner's petition for administrative review in this matter
states an attack on that part of the Administrator's order which
incorporated the Commissioner's findings in the order bearing
Docket No CA 130284 RO. Nowhere does the owner state any objection
to the Administrator's finding regarding the electrical wiring.
The tenants did not file responses.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2529.1 (a):
"A petition for administrative review of an order issued
by a Rent Administrator may be filed by a party to the
proceeding...where such petition alleges the errors upon
which such order is based."
It is apparent that the instant petition is defective in that the
owner did not allege that the Administrator erred in making the
finding regarding the electrical wiring issue. In fact, the owner
was not aggrieved by the Administrator's finding. The balance of
the Administrator's order was issued pursuant to the direction of
the Commissioner and the Administrator did not have any discretion
to alter the Commissioner's findings. The Commissioner notes that
the owner has instituted a proceeding in the Supreme Court pursuant
to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, wherein it is
challenging the order of the Commissioner bearing Docket No. CA
130284 RO. Since the owner has no stated grounds upon which to
challenge the order here under review, that order is, accordingly,
GB 130207 RO
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and
the Rent and Eviction Regulations it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner