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.:
PETITIONER EC 230001-B
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 29, 1991, the above-named tenant representative re-filed
a petition for administrative review of an order issued on August
21, 1990, by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommo
dation known as 3255 Shore Parkway, Brooklyn, New York, wherein
the tenants' application for rent reductions based on an alleged
diminution of services was denied.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues
raised by the petition for review.
On March 1, 1990 various tenants of the subject building filed an
application for rent reductions based on the owner's alleged
failure to maintain services alleging eleven different items.
The owner interposed an answer to the tenant's complaint wherein
it alleged that all services were being provided.
On June 22, 1990 a physical inspection of the subject apartment
building was carried out by the Division of Housing and Community
Renewal (DHCR). The inspector, in his report, noted that none of
the complained of conditions were as alleged by the tenants.
On August 21, 1990 the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review finding that no diminution of services had occurred
thereby denying the tenants' application, and terminating the
In the petition for administrative review the tenant representa-
tive requests reversal of the Rent Administrator's order alleging
that there was no superintendent in the building between January
10, 1990 and March 12, 1990 and that the elevator was not
replaced until July 1990.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the tenant representative has
submitted no evidence, either during the Administrator's pro-
ceeding or by attachment to the petition to substantiate the
allegations made in the complaint. Accordingly, the tenant
representative has offered insufficient reason to disturb the
Rent Administrator's determination.
After close review of the record, including the submissions of
the parties and the report of the DHCR inspection conducted on
June 22, 1990, the Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator
properly based his determination on the evidence of record,
properly determined that services were being maintained, and cor
rectly denied the tenants' application.
While the tenant representative questions the findings of fact,
the record clearly supports those findings. Furthermore, pur-
suant to DHCR's procedures, a rent reduction is not ordered where
the inspector finds that the service defect has been corrected,
notwithstanding that the defect existed prior to the inspection.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby