ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BE 110099 RO
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.: BE 110099 RO
RICHARD ALBERT, :
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: AG 110453 S
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 6, 1987, the above-named owner filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on April 30, 1987, by a
District Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations
known as Apartment No. 1G, 93-43 222nd Street, Queens Village, New
York, wherein rent was reduced due to a diminution of service.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issues raised by the petition for review.
On July 1, 1986 the subject tenant, Mary Christie, filed an
application for a rent reduction based on the owner's alleged
failure to maintain service alleging mice and roach infestation.
On August 12, 1986 the owner interposed an answer to the
tenant's complaint wherein he alleged, inter alia, that
extermination services were being provided.
On October 2, 1986 a physical inspection of the subject
apartment was carried out by the Division of Housing and Community
Renewal (DHCR). The inspector, in his report, noted that the
complained of conditions were as alleged by the tenant.
On April 30, 1987 the District Rent Administrator issued the
order here under review finding that a diminution of services had
occurred and reducing the tenant's rent to the level in effect
prior to the last rent guideline increase which commenced before
the effective date of the rent reduction.
In his petition for administrative review the owner requests
reversal of the administrator's order alleging inter alia, that a
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BE 110099 RO
hearing held by the DHCR found that extermination services were
being provided in the subject building.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the
opinion that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the basis of the administrator's
order was not that extermination services were not being provided.
Rather, the administrator found that these services were not
efficacious as to the amelioration of conditions in the tenant's
apartment, as evidenced by the inspection results.
The Commissioner finds that the administrator properly based
his determination on the entire record, including the results of
the on-site physical inspection conducted on October 2, 1986 and
that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the administrator
properly directed the owner to correct the complained of
condition.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, 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.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BE 110099 RO
|