BF 110358 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.:
WALTER M. BUKAWYN DISTRICT RENT
NO.: AK 110019 S
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA