GD 420036 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.: GD 420036 RO
SHAHID LATIF FOR RENT
JOMIL REALTY CO. ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: EC 420431 S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 6, 1992 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued March 13, 1992. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt 54 located at 2372 Amsterdam Ave., New
York, N.Y. The Administrator ordered a rent reduction for failure
to maintain required services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The tenant commenced this proceeding on March 9, 1990 by
filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein he
alleged the following services deficiencies:
1. Broken windows,
2. Leaks from ceilings,
3. Opening in bathtub through which mice are coming
The Commissioner notes that the tenant filed an additional
complaint on October 8, 1990 (see Docket No. EJ 520466 S) and
alleged that rain water was coming through the ceiling because of
a leaking roof and that the apartment contained defective windows.
The Administrator issued an order on December 2, 1991 wherein both
proceedings were consolidated under Docket No. EC 420431 S.
The owner was served with a copy of the complaints and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The owner failed to respond.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
GD 420036 RO
apartment. The inspection was conducted on February 18, 1992 and
revealed the following:
1. Bathroom walls have peeling paint and plaster,
holes and water stains,
2. No tiles in area of bath tub; hole in floor,
3. Evidence of vermin infestation found in apartment.
The following services were found to have been maintained:
1. No evidence of defective windows,
2. No evidence of leak from front room ceiling,
3. No evidence of defective bathroom sink,
4. No evidence of leak stains throughout apartment.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on March
13, 1992 and ordered a rent reduction of an amount equal to the
most recent guideline adjustment based on the report of the DHCR
On appeal the owner states that the tenant has a new bathroom
containing a new floor, tiles, toilet, pipes, shower body, door and
marble saddle. The owner also states that extermination services
are available and that information regarding this service is posted
in the lobby. The owner submitted photographic evidence to
corroborate its claim regarding the bathroom repairs.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
It is a settled principle of administrative law that the scope
of review in an administrative appeal proceeding is limited to
facts or evidence presented to the Rent Administrator unless it can
be shown that such facts or evidence could not have been presented.
In this case the owner failed to file an answer to the complaint
although afforded proper notice by the Administrator. Therefore,
the Commissioner cannot consider the defenses raised by the owner
at this time. The Commissioner does note, however, that the
owner's allegations in the petitions are contradicted by the report
of the DHCR inspector. Numerous prior decisions have held that
such a report is entitled to more probative weight than the
unsupported allegations of a party to the proceeding.
Pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2523.4 a tenant may apply to the DHCR for
a rent reduction and the Administrator shall reduce the rent based
on a finding of decreased services. Pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2520.6
(r), repairs and maintenance fall within the definition of required
GD 420036 RO
services. The Commissioner finds that the Administrator based this
decision on the entire record, including the results of the on-site
physical inspection conducted on February 18, 1992. The order here
under review is affirmed.
The owner may file for rent restoration when services have
been fully restored.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
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