STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: DF210099RT
MARTIN NEWMARK RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 6, 1989 the above named petitioner-tenant timely
refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of
the Rent Administrator issued May 10, 1989. The order concerned
housing accommodations known as Apt 2C located at 4200 Avenue K,
Brooklyn, N.Y. The Administrator granted the owner's rent
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The owner commenced this proceeding on September 2, 1988 by
filing a rent restoration application wherein it stated that it had
restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing Docket
No. AL230090B had been issued.
The tenant was served with a copy of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The tenant filed a response on
November 15, 1988. The response was in the form of various
documents, including a copy of an order bearing Docket No.
BL210193OR wherein the Administrator had denied the owner's prior
rent restoration application. The documents were offered to show
that the owner had not restored services or that the owner was
overcharging the tenant.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspection was conducted on April 20, 1989 and
revealed the following:
1. New intercom system has been installed. Audio is
loud and clear,
2. The exterior grounds of the building are clean.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on May
10, 1989 and ordered rent restoration for this rent stabilized
On appeal the tenant states that the Administrator erred in
restoring rent because the outside of the building is unclean and
the intercoms are still not functioning properly. The petition was
served on the owner on July 19, 1989.
The owner filed a response on July 31, 1989 and stated, in
sum, that the order here under review was correct when issued and
should be affirmed.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The owner correctly states in its response to the petition
that the physical inspection described above revealed that services
had been restored. This inspection was conducted by a DHCR
employee who is neither a party nor an adversary to this
proceeding. 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. 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