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.:
GLORIA & JULES SINCLAIR,
PETITIONERS DJ 430146-B
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 25, 1991, the above-named tenants, refiled a petition
for administrative review of an order issued on December 20,
1990, by a Rent Administrator concerning the building known as
160 East 84th Street, New York, New York, wherein the tenants'
application for a rent reduction was denied.
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.
On November 8, 1989 the subject tenants filed an application for
a rent reduction based on the owner's alleg d failure to main-
tain certain building-wide services.
On October 24, 1990 the owner interposed an answ r to the ten-
ants' complaint wherein it denied the tenants' allegations and
further asserted that all necessary repairs had been effectuated.
On December 4, 1990 a physical inspection of the subject apart-
ment was carried out by the Division of Housing and Community
Renewal (DHCR). The inspector, in his report, noted that the
complained of conditions were not as alleged by the tenants.
On December 21, 1990 the Rent Administrator issued the order
here under review finding that no building-wide diminution of
services had occurred and denying the tenants' application. The
order was issued without prejudice to the tenants' rights to
assert particular problems in individual apartments in an appro
In their petition for administrative review the tenants of Apart
ment 15-C request modification of the Rent Administrator's order
alleging that the elevator indicator has not been repaired, that
foul odors still occur in the lobby, that there are leaks in
Apartment 15-C, and that their apartment was not inspected.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the tenants' petition is unsupported
by any substantiating evidence and that the Rent Administrator's
order is supported by a physical inspection of the building.
The tenants' petition does not make clear whether it is the ten-
ants' contention that the alleged service deficiencies occurred
before the premises were inspected or the order was issued or
whether the contention is that they occurred following t e issu-
ance of the Rent Administrator's order. If it is the former,
then the allegation is belied by the report of the agency
inspector. If it is the latter, than the Rent Administrator's
order was nevertheless correct when issued, and this order is
issued without prejudice to the tenants' rights as they may
pertain to a de novo application for a rent reduction based on a
diminution of building-wide services.
The Commissioner further notes that the tenants may raise the
issue of leaks in their individual apartment in an individual
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA