ARL 09641 L
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.: ARL 09641 L
STUART DAMENS RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: L 001895 S
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 15, 1986 the above named petitioner owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued March 12, 1986. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt. 19D located at 400 West End Avenue,
New York, N.Y. The Administrator ordered a rent reduction based on
the owner's failure to maintain required services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on April 2, 1985 by
filing a Statement of Complaint alleging that the owner had failed
to paint and plaster his apartment, The Complaint was served on
the owner and an opportunity to respond was afforded.
The owner filed a response on June 6, 1985 and stated, inter
alia, that a painting contractor would be retained to paint and
plaster the apartment. The owner also stated that the tenant was
attempting to harass him by the filing of this complaint.
The tenant filed a reply on August 8, 1985 and, in sum,
restated that the owner had failed to paint and plaster the subject
apartment.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on February 2, 1986 and
revealed the following:
1. Cracked and falling plaster in back hallway wall,
2. Bedroom door leading to terrace step not painted,
ARL 09641 L
3. Second bedroom ceiling and wall only partially
painted.
The Administrator issued a rent reduction order on March 12,
1986 wherein a rent reduction of an amount equal to the most recent
guideline adjustment was ordered based on the report of the DHCR
inspector. On August 8, 1986 the Administrator ordered this
proceeding to be reopened based on the fact that this tenant is
rent controlled and not rent stabilized. The Administrator issued
a corrected order on August 22, 1986 and reduced the rent by $31.90
per month based on the report of the inspector. The Commissioner
notes that the Administrator issued an order on January 29, 1990
wherein the rent was partially restored by $20.90 per month based
on an inspection showing that the owner had done partial painting
and plastering to the affected areas. The owner has failed to
reapply for any further rent restoration.
On appeal the owner states that the Administrator's order is
void because the tenant is not subject to rent stabilization. The
owner also states that the subject apartment was painted in 1985,
and that the tenant's complaint is without merit. The tenant filed
a response to the petition on May 13, 1986 and stated that the
apartment had not been painted.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The owner's statement regarding the fact that the tenant is
not rent stabilized has been resolved by the issuance of the
amended order. This order directed a rent reduction of $31.90 per
month based on the authority of the Administrator pursuant to
Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations to order a
rent reduction in an amount approximating the decrease in rental
value of the apartment. The Commissioner finds that the
Administrator correctly ordered a rent reduction based on the
entire record.
With regard to the owner's assertion that the apartment has
been painted, numerous prior orders of the Commissioner have stated
that the report of a DHCR inspector is entitled to more probative
weight than the unsupported allegations of a party to the
proceeding. In this matter, the Administrator properly relied on
the results of the on-site physical inspection conducted on
February 2, 1986, which revealed that although the apartment had
been painted it had not been done in a workmanlike manner. The
rent reduction ordered by the Administrator for the remaining
condition is therefore warranted.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City it is
ARL 09641 L
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.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
