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

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. FC 630220 RT 
                                                 DISTRICT               RENT
                                              :  DOCKET  NO.  FB  630004  RK
              MARIAN MARTINEZ (REP.)                                        
                              PETITIONER   :  ----

                                 PETITIONER   :  


               On March 14, 1991, the above-named tenant  filed  a  petition
          for administrative review of an order issued on February 27,  1991
          concerning various housing accommodations in the premises known as 
          3464 Knox Place, Bronx, New York. 

               The Commissioner has reviewed all  of  the  evidence  in  the
          record and has carefully considered that  portion  of  the  record
          relevant to the issues raised by the petition for review.  

               This proceeding was commenced on May 6, 1987 upon the  filing
          of a complaint of a decrease in building-wide  services,  to  wit:
          inadequate heat and hot water, under Docket No. BE 610019 HW. 

               On July 22, 1987, a physical inspection was  carried  out  by
          the  Division  of  Housing  and  Community  Renewal  (DHCR).   The
          inspector in his report stated that the hot water was adequate. On 
          September 8, 1987, a second inspection was conducted.  The  second
          report stated that no hot water was being provided.  

               On October 1, 1987, the Administrator's  order  under  Docket
          No. BE 610019 HW determined that there was a failure  to  maintain
          services in the subject building.  Further, the order reduced  the
          rents of the rent-controlled  and  rent-stabilized  units  in  the
          subject premises.   

               On  October  19,  1987,  the  owner  filed  a  petition   for
          administrative review of the order under Docket No. BJ 630090  RO.

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FC 630220 RT
          On January 17, 1990, the Commissioner found that the inspection of 
          September 8, 1987 was made on a day when the boiler was  shut  off
          for a cleaning with notice to the  tenants.   The  case  was  then
          remanded  to  the  Administrator  for  reprocessing  and   further

               The case was reprocessed under Docket No. EA 630025  RP.   On
          May 29, 1990,  the  Administrator  carried  out  another  physical
          inspection, and the inspector reported  that  the  hot  water  was
          adequate.  Accordingly, the Administrator in his order of June 14, 
          1990 ordered that the prior Administrator's order (October 1, 1987 
          under Docket No. BE 610019 HW) be revoked.

               Many of the tenants alleged that they were  not  served  with
          the Administrator's order of revocation (EA 630035 RP)  previously
          entered and that they were denied their right to file  a  petition
          for review.  The tenants' demand for reconsideration  was  granted
          and the case was again reopened for reprocessing under Docket  No.
          FB 630004 RK.  On  February  26,  1991,  DHCR  conducted  a  final
          physical inspection.  The inspector reported that  both  the  heat
          and hot water were adequate.  

               In the order here under review the  Administrator  determined
          that the Administrator's order of revocation (EA 630025 RP) should 
          be affirmed.  However, with the consent of the  owner,  a  revised
          schedule for repayment of arrearages by the tenants  was  included
          with the order.  

               The petition for administrative review filed by the  tenants'
          representative   repeats   the   arguments   made    before    the
          Administrator.  The tenants point to the quantity of the  constant
          and consistent responses from the various tenants throughout  this
          proceeding alleging heat or hot  water  reductions.   Further  the
          tenants allege and document that the city  Department  of  Housing
          Preservation  and  Development  (HPD)  issued   four   hot   water
          violations in 1987, one in 1988 and four  in  1990.   The  tenants
          claim that this constitutes a sufficient showi g  of  a  building-
          wide reduction  in  services  and  request  the  reversal  of  the
          Administrator's order and  reinstatement  of  the  original  order
          (October  1,  1987  under  Docket  No.  BE  630019  HW).   In  the
          alternative, the tenants state that they have "no objection" to  a
          restoration of the rents, but that such a  restoration  should  be
          prospectively applied. 

               After careful  consideration,  the  Commissioner  is  of  the
          opinion that the petition should be denied.

               In each  case,  the  Commissioner  must  weigh  the  evidence
          presented.  In this case, the tenants rely predominantly on  their
          own statements to support their claim.  While these statements are 
          relevant and probative, they are also the subjective statements of 
          parties.  In such cases, impartial and corroborative evidence is 

          of great importance in determination  of  the  issues.   The  only
          corroboration in the record to support  the  allegations  are  HPD
          violations covering a four year period.  Each  of  the  violations
          cited by the tenants  relates  to  a  specific  apartment  in  the
          subject building rather than  conditions  in  the  building  as  a

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FC 630220 RT
          whole.  In addition, several  of  the  violations  are  listed  as
          having been corrected soon after the violations were issued.  The 
          Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion  that  there  is   insufficient
          independent proof to sustain the allegations  of  a  building-wide
          diminution of services.  In fact, it must be  noted  that  on  two
          separate occasions (July 22, 1987, May 29, 1990) DHCR  inspections
          reported an adequate supply of hot  water,  and  on  one  occasion
          (February 26, 1991) a DHCR inspection reported an adequate  supply
          of heat and hot water.  It is also noted, that  these  inspections
          were conducted without notice to the owner.   

               THEREFORE,   in   accordance   with   the   City   Rent   and
          Rehabilitation Law, the Rent and  Eviction  Regulations,  and  the
          Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

               ORDERED, that this petition  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
          denied, and that the District Rent Administrator's order  be,  and
          the same hereby is, affirmed. 


                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          Deputy Commissioner


          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FC 630220 RT


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