BF 420110 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.: BF420110-RO

     BRADFORD N. SWEET ASSOCIATES       DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                        NO.: AB 520091 S
                        PETITIONER
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
      On  May  29,  1987 the above named petitioner-owner  timely
filed  a  Petition for Administrative Review against an order  of
the   Rent  Administrator  issued  April  24,  1987.   The  order
concerned housing accommodations known as Apt. 56 located  at  31
Tiemann Place, New York, N.Y. wherein the Administrator ordered a
rent  reduction  for  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 tenants commenced this proceeding on January 31, 1986 by
filing  a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services, wherein
the following services deficiencies were alleged:

          1.  Loose ornamental window guard railing as well
              as inoperative window

          2.  Bathroom ceiling rusted out
          
          3.  Bathroom wall collapsing
          
          4.  Hall floor planks collapsing
          
          5.  Bedroom and hall planks splintered
          
          6.  Living room light fixture broken
          
          7.  Broken valve in bedroom radiator
          
          8.  Entrance door not fireproof
          
          9.  Inoperative door bell
          
         10.  Inoperative bathtub drain
     
         11.  Living room ceiling collapsing
     
         12.  Numerous large cracks in walls
     
A  copy  of  the  complaint  was  served  on  the  owner  and  an
opportunity  was  given to respond thereto.  The  owner  filed  a
response  on March 27, 1986 wherein it asserted that repairs  had
been effected on all items of the tenants' complaint.

      The  Administrator  ordered a physical  inspection  of  the
premises.  This inspection was conducted on November 24, 1986 and
revealed the following:

          1.  Defective electrical fixtures in living room;
              no electricity in room

          2.  Bathtub drainage slow
          
          3.  Defective paint and plaster throughout
              apartment

          4.  Worn and splintered floors in living room,
              bedroom and foyer

          5.  Inoperative bedroom radiator valve
          
          6.  Two windows and frames at living room
              and one in bedroom defective

          7.  Inoperative apartment door bell.
          
The  Administrator ordered a $35.00 rent reduction based  on  the
inspector's  report.  The Commissioner notes that this  apartment
was subsequently purchased by the tenants.

     On appeal the owner, through counsel, raises two grounds for
reversal  of the Administrator's order.  They are: (1) withdrawal
of the complaint by the tenants and (2) failure to give the owner
due  process.   Petitioner's initial argument is that  the  owner
addressed  the  tenants'  complaints  and  corrected  them.   The
tenants allegedly signed acknowledgements that the work had  been
done.   It  is the owner's contention that these acknowledgements
should  be  read as the tenants' wish to withdraw the  complaint.
The due process denial the owner refers to is the failure to give
it  notice  of  the inspection and serve it with a  copy  of  the
inspector's  report.   The  owner  argues  that  these  omissions
constitute  a  violation of DHCR procedure.  The tenant  did  not
file a response to the petition.

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

      The  Commissioner rejects the petitioner's  first  argument
regarding  withdrawal of the complaint.  In the first place,  the
tenant's actions do not constitute a recognizable withdrawal. The
tenants  have  never  stated  an  affirmative  desire  that  this
complaint be withdrawn.  The Commissioner notes that there  is  a
substantial  question as to whether the repairs the owner  speaks
of have been done, in that the inspector's report contradicts the
statements  of the owner.  It is settled that such  a  report  is
entitled to more probative weight than the statements of a  party
to the proceeding.

      Petitioner's second argument, i.e. due process  denial  for
failure  to  give  notice of the inspection and  a  copy  of  the
inspector's  report, has been presented to the  Commissioner  and
rejected  on  other occasions.  The Commissioner has consistently
held that the filing of the complaint puts the owner on notice of
the  conditions and the need to investigate and correct them. Due
process  does  not  require that the owner be given  any  further
notice  or  a  copy of the inspector's report (See Empress  Manor
Apartments  v.  DHCR 147 AD 2d. 642,538 NYS  2d  49  [2nd  Dept.,
1989]).  The order here under review is, therefore, affirmed.

     THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City 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
                                 Acting Deputy Commissioner