FF 410292-RO
                                
                        STATE OF NEW YORK
            DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                  OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                           GERTZ PLAZA
                     92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                     JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
                                
                                
----------------------------------x
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: FF 410292 RO

     J. R. EQUITIES INC.                DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                        NO.:  EG 410039 S
                        PETITIONER
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
      On  June  17, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner  timely
refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order  of
the  Rent  Administrator issued November  20,  1990.   The  order
concerned housing accommodations known as Apt. 1D located at  206
E.  17th Street, New York, N.Y. wherein the Administrator ordered
a  rent  reduction  based  on a finding of  failure  to  maintain
required or essential services,

      The  Commissioner  has reviewed the  record  and  carefully
considered  that portion relevant to the issues  raised  by  this
appeal.

      The  tenant commenced this proceeding on July  1,  1990  by
filing  a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services  wherein
she alleged the following:

          1.   The bathtub failed to drain properly
          
          2.   The bathroom basin failed to drain properly

          3.   The  toilet  failed to drain and  flush  properly;
               sewage was seeping onto the bathroom floor
          
          4.   There was oozing and seepage from the toilet
          
The  complaint  was  served on the owner and  an  opportunity  to
respond was afforded.

      The  owner  filed a response on July 27, 1990.   The  owner
stated  that,  a  repairman had been sent  to  the  apartment  to
investigate the tenant's complaints.  The toilet and  tub  drains
were  cleaned and a washer replaced in the sink.  The toilet seat
was  also  replaced.  The owner also stated  that  there  was  an
accumulation  of  garbage  in  the apartment  that  made  repairs
difficult.   Subsequent  to  these   repairs,  the  tenant  again
complained of oozing at the base of the toilet.  The owner  again
investigated this and found no evidence of oozing or seepage  and
also found the toilet to be functioning properly.

      The  Administrator  ordered a physical  inspection  of  the
premises.  The inspection was carried out on August 7 and  August
10, 1990 and revealed the following:

          1.   Clogged bathtub and basin drain in bathroom
          
          2.   Water leak from toilet pipe below water tank
          
          3.   Toilet does not flush properly
          
On  November  20, 1990 the Administrator issued  the  order  here
under  review  wherein  a rent reduction was  granted,  effective
August 1, 1990, based on the inspector's report.

      On appeal the owner makes two arguments in seeking reversal
of  the  order here under review.  First, the owner  repeats  its
claim  that the toilet worked properly, with no leak, seepage  or
oozing.   Second,  the  owner attempts to document  the  tenant's
failure  to provide access to the apartment, so that repairs  can
be made.  The tenant did not respond to the petition.

      After  careful  review of the evidence in the  record,  the
Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion that the  petition  should  be
denied.

      With  regard to the owner's claim that the toilet functions
properly,  such  statements are at variance with the  inspector's
report.   It  is settled that the report of a DHCR  inspector  is
entitled   to   more  probative  weight  than   the   unsupported
allegations of a party to the proceeding.

      With regard to the alleged failure of the tenant to provide
access,  it  is equally settled that the scope of  review  in  an
administrative appeal is limited to facts and evidence which were
before  the  Administrator.  Petitioner did not  put  forth  this
claim  in  the proceeding below and is now barred from  doing  so
before  the  Commissioner.  Had the owner  established  that  the
tenant was refusing access, the Administrator could have arranged
a  "no access" inspection at which the owner and tenant would  be
directed  to be present at an appointed date so that the  repairs
could  be done.  Having not done so, the order here under  review
is  affirmed  and the owner is advised to file a rent restoration
application  when  the repairs are completed  or  the  owner  can
establish that the tenant is refusing access.

      THEREFORE, pursuant to 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 is, affirmed.

ISSUED:



                                     JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                     Acting Deputy Commissioner