BF 110358 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.:
BK 110358-RO

     WALTER M. BUKAWYN                  DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: AK 110019 S
                        PETITIONER
----------------------------------x


 ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                               
      On June 30, 1987 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator  issued  June  22,  1987.   The  order  concerned
housing accommodations known as Apt. 507 located at 33-52  85th
Street, Jackson Heights, N.Y. wherein the Administrator ordered
a  rent  reduction  due  to  the owner's  failure  to  maintain
required or essential services.

      The  Commissioner has reviewed the record  and  carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised  by  this
appeal.

      The  tenant commenced this application on August 29, 1986
by  filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services  to
wit--  roach infestation in the subject apartment.   The  owner
was  served  with  a copy of the application  and  afforded  an
opportunity to respond.

      The  Administrator ordered a physical inspection  of  the
premises,  which was duly held.  This inspection confirmed  the
existence  of  roach  infestation  in  the  apartment  and  the
inspector so reported.  The Administrator issued the order here
under  review  on June 22, 1987, reducing the stabilized  rent.
The  Commissioner  notes that the rent  was  ordered  restored,
effective September 1, 1987 pursuant to an order bearing Docket
No. BF 110134 OR.


     On appeal, the owner makes the following arguments:

          1.   The Statement of Complaint was never received so
               no  notice  and  opportunity  to  be  heard  was
               afforded.
          
          
          2.   Monthly exterminator service is provided but the
               tenant refuses to avail herself of such service.
               Furthermore,  the infestation is the  result  of
               the  manner  in  which the tenant maintains  the
               apartment.
          
          3.   The  findings of the inspector are only  sugges-
               tive and not conclusive.
          
          4.   A  stipulation  of settlement was  entered  into
               between the parties, on January 9, 1987, wherein
               the  tenant agreed to waive her claim for a rent
               reduction  in consideration of $500.  The  owner
               argues  that  the  stipulation,  which  was  "so
               ordered"  by  a Housing Court Judge,  supercedes
               the Administrator's order.
               
      The  owner  submitted a statement by an exterminator  who
stated  that he had visited the apartment on two occasions  but
that no one was home on either occasion.

      The  tenant filed a response to the petition on September
22,  1987  wherein  she stated, inter alia, that  exterminating
services have never been refused, but that she and her  husband
work  and  will only leave the key or provide access when  they
know  for  certain that the exterminator will  be  there.   The
tenant  further stated that she was not aware of  any  appoint-
ments made to exterminate in her apartment.

      After  careful review of the evidence in the record,  the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
denied.

      Addressing the owner's arguments in the order  presented,
the  Commissioner has reviewed DHCR records, which confirm that
the owner was served at the proper address.  Thus, petitioner's
first ground lacks merit.

      With regard to the second ground the tenant's response to
the  petition clearly stated a desire to provide access to  the
apartment for purposes of extermination.  The statement of the

exterminator  is  not  sufficiently  detailed  as   to   actual
appoint-ments  made with notice to the tenant  to  establish  a
refusal  of  access  by the tenant.  The owner's  third  ground
relates  to the weight the inspector's report is to  be  given.
It  is  settled that the report of a DHCR inspector is entitled
to more proba-tive weight than the unsupported allegations of a
party to the proceeding.

      Finally,  the  Commissioner has reviewed the  stipulation
entered into between the parties and finds it is insufficiently
clear  with  respect  to the tenant's desire  to  withdraw  her
complaint  in  this matter.  It also cannot be determined  from
the  terms of the agreement whether the abatement was  for  the
same  condition that resulted in the rent reduction ordered  by
the  Administrator.  The Administrator's order  is,  therefore,
affirmed.


      THEREFORE,  pursuant  to 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:




JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                    Deputy Commissioner
    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name