CK410051RO

                                  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     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 
                                                  NO.: CC410166OR
                                  PETITIONER           
          ----------------------------------x                    


            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 
          rent restoration.

               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 
          appeal.

               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 












          CK410051RO

          the windows of the master bedroom, living room and den.  The 
          inspector also reported that the stove had been repaired and was 
          operable.  

               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 






          CK410051RO

          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 
          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
                                         
                 






    

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