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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.: DK110246RT
VARIOUS TENANTS OF 99-40 RENT
63RD ROAD ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above referenced administrative appeals have been
consolidated as all contain common issues of law and fact.
Five petitioner-tenants filed timely Petitions for
Administrative Review against an order of the Rent Administrator
issued October 19, 1989. The order concerned various housing
accommodations located at 99-40 63rd Road, Rego Park, N.Y wherein
the Administrator granted the owner's rent restoration application.
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 7, 1989 by filing
a rent restoration application wherein it alleged that it had
restored services for which a building-wide rent reduction order
bearing Docket No. BI110068B had been issued.
The tenants were served with copies of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. Various tenants, including the
petitioners in Docket Nos. DK110123RT, DK110124RT and DK110246RT
filed response to the application and stated, in sum, that the
owner had not restored services and that, therefore, the
application should be denied. The petitioners in Docket Nos.
DK110074RT and DK130125RT did not file responses.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspection was conducted on August 3, 1989 and
revealed the following:
1. Top floor ceiling on public hallway shows evidence
of leaks and peeling paint and plaster,
2. Installation of wallpaper on public hallways
3. Defective exit lights,
4. No lobby furniture in subject premises.
All other services were found to have been maintained.
On August 9, 1989 the Administrator sent the owner a request
for information wherein it was notified of the results of the DHCR
inspection described above and afforded an opportunity to make
repairs and provide proof thereof.
On August 28, 1989 the owner responded to the Administrator's
request and provided proof that all required repairs had been
completed. The owner also stated that there never was any
furniture in the lobby. This response was served on the tenants on
August 31, 1989. The tenants did not reply
On August 9, 1989 the Administrator sent a request for
information to the tenant representative wherein it requested a
notarized statement from the rent stabilized tenants to the effect
that furniture had been provided in the lobby, that the service had
ceased and also requesting the period of time the furniture was
provided and when the service was discontinued. The tenants failed
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
October 19, 1989 and granted the owner's application. The
Administrator found that the owner had restored all services and
that the evidence of record indicated that lobby furniture was
Five tenants have filed appeals from the Administrator's
order. The tenants in Docket Nos. DK110074RT and DK130125RT did
not file responses to the owner's application. The scope of review
in administrative appeals is limited to facts or evidence presented
before the Administrator unless it can be shown that such facts or
evidence could not have been presented. The two petitioner tenants
who did not respond below have not offered any excuse for failing
to do so. Therefore, their administrative appeals are denied.
The three remaining petitioners all state, in sum, that the
owner has not restored services but offer no proof to rebut the
inspector's report or the August 28, 1989 response of the owner.
The petitions were served on the owner.
The owner filed responses wherein it stated, in sum, that the
Administrator's order was correctly issued and should be affirmed.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitions should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the physical inspection described
above was conducted by a DHCR employee who is neither a party to
this proceeding or an adversary. The inspector's report is
entitled to more probative weight than the unsupported allegations
of the petitioner-tenants herein. The Commissioner further notes
that the tenants failed to respond to the owner's August 28, 1989
response wherein the owner provided proof that it had completed
repairs to the items which the inspector reported as not being
maintained. Since the tenants have offered no proof in support of
their administrative appeals, the petitions are denied and the
order here under review is affirmed.
The Commissioner notes that the owner filed an administrative
appeal of the rent reduction order bearing Docket No. BI110068B.
In Order No. DC130089RO the Commissioner modified the rent
reduction order to delete the findings regarding the wallpaper,
exit lights, elevators and lobby furniture and affirmed the rent
reduction. The proceeding was remanded to the Administrator for
further investigation of whether or not the lobby furniture is a
base date service required to be provided.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA