CC420040RO
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.: CC420040RO
CORONET PROPERTIES RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: BF410423S
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above named petitioner-owner timely refiled a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order of the Rent Administrator
issued January 7, 1988. The order concerned housing accommodations
known as Apt 16D located at 170 Second Avenue, New York, N.Y. The
Administrator ordered a rent reduction for failure to maintain
required services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on June 11, 1987 by
filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein he
alleged that the owner had installed defective replacement windows
in his apartment and cited various problems regarding the opening
and closing of the windows.
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded
an opportunity to respond. The owner, represented by counsel,
filed a response on September 23, 1987. The owner stated, in sum,
that the windows in question were in good working order except for
a few minor repairs, that the tenants were given the opportunity to
have repairs made to the replacement windows after they were
installed, that the owner had an independent contractor conduct
inspections to determine various tenants allegations of defective
window installation, that 21 tenants of whom the complaining tenant
was one refused to allow access for an inspection, that the
contractor was able to conduct inspections of other apartments and
found no major defects in the installations, that the owner will
make a further attempt to gain access to the subject apartment for
purposes of conducting an inspection, that the new windows pose no
safety threat to the public nor do they rise to the level of a
decrease in services and that the complaint should be denied.
CC420040RO
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on November 17, 1987 and
revealed the following:
1. Top kitchen window sash difficult to open,
2. Two living room windows have top sashes that are
difficult to open,
3. Master bedroom sashes has defective sashes that are
difficult to open and close. The top sash will not
stay within the window track,
4. One small bedroom window has a top sash that is
difficult to open,
5. The remaining small bedroom window comes off the
track and will not lock.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
January 7, 1988 and ordered a $9.00 per month rent reduction as
follows: $1.50 each for the first, third, fourth and fifth
conditions reported and $3.00 for the second condition.
On appeal the owner, as represented by counsel, states that
the subject windows were inspected by a contractor on September 16,
1987 and reinspected on November 6, 1987, that these inspections
revealed that the windows in question required only minor
adjustments, that the adjustments were made, that other tenants
residing in the building had made complaints requesting a rent
reduction based on defective windows and that no rent reductions
had been ordered, and that any problems with the windows were in
the nature of minor repairs for which a rent reduction is not
warranted. the owner attached documentation to the petition in the
form of affidavits, sworn to by the individual who did the
inspections described above, attesting to the fact that the windows
had been properly installed and that only minor adjustments were
required. The owner also attached copies of Administrator's orders
issued in cases where other building tenants had requested rent
reductions based on problems with the windows. The orders were
offered to show that no rent reductions had been granted to any
other tenant. The petition was served on the tenant.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The submissions made by the owner both before the
Administrator and in this administrative appeal proceeding averred
that the windows in question were properly installed and only minor
adjustments were required. The DHCR inspector reported otherwise,
however. Numerous prior decisions of the Commissioner have held
CC420040RO
that the report of a DHCR inspector is entitled to more probative
weight than the unsupported allegations of a party to the
proceeding.
Pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction
Regulations for New York City a tenant may apply to the DHCR for a
rent reduction based on decreased services. The Administrator is
empowered to order a rent reduction of a dollar amount
approximating the decrease in value of the apartment. The
Commissioner finds that the Administrator based this determination
on the entire record including the results of the on-site physical
inspection conducted on November 17, 1987. The order here under
review is affirmed.
The Commissioner notes that the owner filed an application for
rent restoration (Docket No CC420047OR) and that the application
was denied on January 5, 1989. No further application has been
filed.
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
Deputy Commissioner
|
