BH 210209 RO; BH 210026 RT
                                
                        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
APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NO.: BH 210209 RO
                                                    BH 210076 RT
     M/E MCCABE
     JAMES MOKARRY                      DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: AJ 210611 S
                       PETITIONERS
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
      The  above  named petitioner owner and tenant filed  timely
Petitions for Administrative Review against an order of the  Rent
Administrator issued July 14, 1987.  The order concerned  housing
accommodations  known  as  Apt. 4D located  at  311  8th  Street,
Brooklyn, N.Y. wherein the Administrator ordered a rent reduction
based  on  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  these
appeals.

      The  tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a Statement
of  Complaint of Decrease in Services on October 31,  1986.   The
following services deficiencies were alleged:

          1.   Apartment in need of painting
          
          2.   Ceiling ruined by water seepage from roof
          
          3.   Apartment walls need to be scraped, plastered  and
               painted
          
          4.   Mold on walls
          
The  tenant  stated  that the owner had been appraised  of  these
conditions  but  had  not  taken action  to  correct  them.   The
complaint was served on the owner and an opportunity was afforded
to respond thereto.

      The  Administrator  ordered a physical  inspection  of  the
apartment.  The inspection was carried out on April 14, 1987  and
revealed  there  was  peeling paint and  plaster  throughout  the
entire  apartment hallway and that said hallway was  in  need  of
scraping, plastering and painting.

      On  July  14, 1987 the Administrator issued the order  here
under review.  A rent reduction was ordered effective December 1,
1986.

      Both parties have filed appeals from this order.  The owner
states  that the tenant refused to allow access to the  apartment
on  at least three occasions and as a result repairs could not be
made.  Supporting documentation is annexed to the petition.  This
documentation is in the form of letters, by the owner, requesting
duplicate  keys  to the apartment, an affidavit of  the  building
superintendent  regarding  the alleged  lack  of  access  to  the
apartment  as  well as one from a painter also attesting  to  the
tenant's failure to give access.

     The tenant's petition states that the entire apartment is in
need  of  scraping,  plastering and painting  and  not  just  the
hallway.

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

      With  regard  to  the  owner's  claim  of  no  access,  the
documentation  submitted  on appeal  was  not  submitted  to  the
Administrator.    It is settled that the scope of  review  of  an
administrative  appeal is limited to facts or evidence  presented
before the Administrator.  Since the owner did not present any of
this  evidence  in  the proceeding below, the  Commissioner  must
reject the "no access" claim.

      With  regard to the tenant's claim, the inspector  reported
that  only  the  hallway  was in need of scraping,  painting  and
plastering.  It is equally settled law that the report of a  DHCR
inspector  is  entitled  to  more  probative  weight   than   the
allegations of a party to the proceeding.  The order  here  under
review is affirmed.

      THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and  Code
it is

      ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby  are,
denied, and the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the  same
hereby is, affirmed.

ISSUED:



                                   JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                   Acting 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