STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.: DK110246RT
          VARIOUS TENANTS OF 99-40                RENT
          63RD ROAD                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: DC130039OR

               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 
          to reply.

               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 
          never provided.

               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
                                             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