DHCR Decisions
EK 220172-RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
----------------------------------x
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
EK 220172-RO
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
JAMES PARRIS, DOCKET NO.:
DH 220614-S
PREMISES:
47 MacDonough St.,
PETITIONER Apt. 16, Brooklyn, NY
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN PART AND MODIFYING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On November 19, 1990, the above-named petitioner filed a timely
Petition for Administrative Review of an order issued on October
16, 1990, concerning the housing accommodations relating to the
above-described docket numbers.
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 the petition.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on August 18, 1989 by filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
sixteen, itemized services in the subject apartment.
In his answer filed on September 28, 1989, the owner denied the
allegations as set forth in the tenant's complaint and otherwise
asserted that he is "doing his best to keep the building in good
operative condition". The owner also stated that repairs are
still being performed and many repairs had been completed.
An on-site inspection of the subject apartment was conducted on
September 18, 1990 by a Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR) staff member who confirmed the existence of numerous de-
fective conditions.
Based on this inspection, the Administrator directed restoration
of services and a reduction of the legal regulated rent in the
following manner:
1. Bedroom door missing glass pane and door knob . . $ 3.00
EK 220172-RO
2. Apartment entrance door - broken frame . . . . . 5.00
3. Near apartment entrance door, the ceiling is
water stained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.00
4. Bedroom - peeling paint and plaster on walls
($5.00) and ceiling ($5.00) . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00
5. Kitchen cabinet door does not close properly . . 3.00
6. Bathroom ceiling next to riser - fallen plaster . 5.00
7. Apartment intercom - defective . . . . . . . . . 6.00
Total: $ 37.00
=====
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that as evi-
denced by copies of allegedly paid bills dated prior to the
issuance of the Administrator's order, repairs had been per-
formed; that the tenant refused access in October and November
of 1990; that the tenant did not complain about the bedroom door,
the apartment door frame, the kitchen cabinet door or fallen
plaster in the bathroom ceiling next to the riser; that the owner
was not given the opportunity o correct the defective condi-
tions; that the tenant's "negligence or maliciousness" caused the
disrepair; that the owner wants a hearing and the opportunity to
check the entire file.
A search of DHCR records shows that the owner made no request
pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) to review the
file.
In answer to the petition, the tenant denied the owner s allega-
tions of repair and otherwise asserted the continued existence of
twelve remaining items of defective conditions.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be granted in part a d the Administra-
tor's order should be modified.
A careful review of the tenant's complaint reveals that with one
exception, the conditions for which the rent was reduced were all
mentioned in the complaint. The tenant's complaint asserts that
the apartment door does not close properly which adequately put
the owner on notice that the frame might be defective. T e ten-
ant also complained about the kitchen cabinet needing to be
replaced which sufficiently alerted the owner to a problem with
the cabinet door and the allegation that the bathroom ceiling is
leaking was sufficient to put the owner on notice of the fallen
plaster condition.
The owner is correct, however, that the tenant did not complain
about the bedroom door. The complaint referred to the bedroom
windows which the inspector found to be free of defec . Accord-
ingly, the $3.00 per month rent reduction for this item is
revoked.
As to the other conditions, the copies of paid bills were not
submitted by the owner in the proceeding below and prior to
issuance of the Administrator's order and are now offered for the
first time on appeal to support a vague assertion of repairs.
EK 220172-RO
Thus, this insufficient evidence is beyond the scope of review
of the administrative appeal which is limited to the issues and
evidence before the Administrator.
Even if this evidence is to be considered, the tenant denies that
the repairs were done and the bills are contradicted y the on-
site inspection which took place subsequent to the repair dates
indicated on the bills.
The owner's unsubstantiated assertion that the tenant refused
access in October and November of 1990 was not raised in the
proceeding below and prior to issuance of the Administrator's
order and is now raised as a self-serving, unproven assertion for
the first time on appeal. Accordingly, this unsubstantiated
assertion is also beyond the scope of review of th s administra-
tive appeal which is limited to the issues and evidence before
the Administrator.
The owner's allegation that he was not given the opportunity to
correct the defective conditions is without merit. It is more
than a year from the time the owner was served and answered the
tenant's complaint to the issuance of the Administrator's order.
Despite such ample opportunity to investigate the tenant's
complaint and make necessary repairs, the owner failed to do so.
The owner's unsupported allegation that the tenant's "negligence
or maliciousness" caused the disrepair was also not raised in the
proceeding below and prior to issuance of the Administrator's
order and is now raised as a self-serving, unproven assertion for
the first time on appeal. The owner may pursue in a court of
competent jurisdiction other legal remedies against the tenant
for damage to the owner's property.
Accordingly, the owner's petition has failed to outweigh the
preponderance of the evidence submitted by the inspector who
confirmed on September 18, 1990, the continued existence of
decreased services, warranting a rent reduction.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations
for New York City, it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted
in part, and that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the
same hereby is, modified to revoke the $3.00 per month rent
reduction for the defective bedroom door but is affirmed in all
other respects.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|