CB410082RO
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.: CB410082RO
CORONET PROPERTIES RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: BF410727S
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 11, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued January 28, 1988. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt 10E 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 1, 1987 by filing
a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services in which he
alleged that the owner had installed defective replacement windows
in the subject 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 the allegations of defective window
installation made by several of the building tenants, 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
CB410082RO
that the complaint should be denied.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspector made the following report:
1. Two top living room windows are difficult to open,
2. One kitchen top window sash is difficult to open,
3. One bathroom window top sash is difficult to open,
4. Two bedroom top window sashes are difficult to
open.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
January 28, 1988 and ordered a $9.00 per month rent reduction as
follows: $1.50 each for the second and third conditions reported
and $3.00 for the first and fourth 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 these
other tenants. The petition was served on the tenant on March 16,
1988.
The tenant filed a response on April 4, 1988 and challanged,
among other things, the owner's statements that any problems with
the windows were so minor as to not warrant a rent reduction. The
tenant requested that the Commissioner affirm the Administrator's
order.
The owner filed a reply on April 26, 1988 and stated that the
petition was properly signed and verified. The owner then
essentially restated the arguments raised in the petition for
administrative review.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
CB410082RO
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
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 described above. The order here under review is
affirmed.
The Commissioner notes that the owner filed an application for
rent restoration (Docket No DD410073OR) and that the application
was granted on September 26, 1989.
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
|
