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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NO.:
VARIOUS TENANTS OF
143-25 84TH DRIVE RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER FC 130015-B
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
Various tenants of the above-named building filed a timely peti-
tion for administrative review of an order issued on July 10,
1991, by a Rent Administrator concerning the building known as
143-25 84th Drive, Briarwood, New York, wherein the tenants'
application for rent reductions 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 4, 1991 the seven subject tenants, filed an application
for a rent reduction based on the owner's alleged failure to
maintain services alleging a defective elevator, dirty public
area floors, inadequate building maintenance personnel, inade-
quate water pressure, and fluctuating water temperature.
The owner interposed an answer to the tenants' complaint wherein
it alleged, in substance, that all conditions had been corrected.
On June 12, 1991 a physical inspection of the subject building
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 July 10, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review, finding that no diminution of services had occurred
denying the application and terminating the proceeding. The
tenants were also advised of their right to file individu l com-
plaint regarding allegations of low water pressure or fluctuating
water temperature in their apartments.
In their petition for administrative review six of the original
seven complainants are joined by twenty-four additional tenants
who were not parties to the original proceeding in requesting
that the Rent Administrator's order be reversed alleging that the
items claimed in the original complaint constitute diminutions of
service. Attached to the petitions are photocopied documents
previously submitted in the Rent Administrator's proceeding and
exhibits labelled "A" through "N".
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner finds that the twenty-four signatories of the
instant petition who did not sign the original complaint lack
standing to file the petition and are improperly joined as
The Commissioner also notes that all of the numerous exhibits
attached to the petition antedate the filing of the original
complaint on March 4, 1991 and are not probative of conditions as
they existed during the proceeding under review or on the date of
issuance of the administrator's order.
The Commissioner notes that while the tenants question t e find-
ings of fact the record clearly reflects those findings by virtue
of DHCR inspection which occurred on June 12, 1991.
Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the administrator properly
relied on the results of the inspection, and that, based thereon,
the administrator properly determined that t e owner was main-
taining services and properly denied the tenants' rent reduction
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