STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
----------------------------------x SJR 6788 DEEMED DENIAL
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: CK410051RO
DWELLING MANAGERS, INC. RENT
C/O F.B.S.A. & G., P.C. ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On November 2, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued October 11, 1988. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt 33F located at 60 East 8th Street, New
York, N.Y. The Administrator denied the owner's application for
Subsequently the owner filed a petition pursuant to Article 78
of the Civil Practice Law and Rules in Supreme Court wherein it
deemed it's petition for administrative review denied. The court
remitted the proceeding to the DHCR based on its agreement to issue
an order in this matter no later than June 11, 1993.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The owner commenced this proceeding on March 25, 1988 and
stated that it had restored services for which a rent reduction
order bearing Docket No. AF410755S had been issued. A copy of the
application was served on the tenant.
The tenant filed a response on May 18, 1988 and stated, in
sum, that the owner had not restored services. The tenant
requested a physical inspection of the apartment to verify the fact
that the owner had failed to make repairs.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the
apartment. The inspection was conducted on September 13, 1988 and
revealed that the sink stopper was inoperable in both bathrooms and
that there was peeling paint and plaster and water damage around
the windows of the master bedroom, living room and den. The
inspector also reported that the stove had been repaired and was
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
October 11, 1988 and denied the owner's application based on the
report of the DHCR inspector.
On appeal the owner states that the conditions cited as the
basis for the denial of the application were corrected or the
tenant had failed to notify the owner of the conditions or the
tenant is denying access to the owner. The owner attached
documentation to the petition in the form of paid bills and
affidavits which were offered to show that the repairs had been
made. The owner also provided copies of letters sent to the tenant
on October 20, 1988 and November 2, 1988 wherein the owner inquired
if any services problems existed in the apartment. The tenant is
alleged not to have filed any responses to these letters. The
petition was served on the tenant on January 10, 1989.
The tenant filed a response on January 17, 1989 wherein she
stated, in sum, that the Administrator's order was correctly issued
and that the petition should be denied. The owner, through
counsel, filed a reply on March 31, 1989 and stated that the tenant
had failed to provide access and that all repairs had been made.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner initially notes that the owner filed an
administrative appeal from the rent reduction order bearing Docket
No AF410755S. The Commissioner issued an order and opinion
remanding this proceeding to the Administrator (Docket No.
BC410345RO). The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of
the apartment after the proceeding was reopened and issued an order
bearing Docket No. CG410079RP wherein the rent reduction was
affirmed. The Commissioner has affirmed Docket No. CG410079RP in
an order and opinion bearing Docket No. DG410165RO.
The owner's petition contains mere conclusory allegations of
both the alleged repairs and the alleged denial of access. With
regard to the owner's attempts to contact the tenant by letter, the
complaint filed by the tenant and the rent reduction order issued
by the Administrator gave the owner ample notice of the conditions
in the apartment and the need to correct them. The owner's
arguments are restatements of ones put forth in an attack on the
rent reduction order. The Commissioner rejected these arguments in
Docket No. DG410165RO. Moreover, the owner's restoration
application is based on a statement that repairs had been done, not
that access had been refused.
The report of the DHCR inspector is entitled to more probative
weight than the unsupported allegations of the owner. Based on the
inspection report, the Administrator was correct in denying the
owner's application. The order here under review is affirmed.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
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