STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
ARJAN MIRCHANDANI/ DOCKET NO.:
SANFORD FLUSHING ASSOCIATES, ED 110832-S
132-35 Sanford Ave.,
PETITIONER Apt. 111, Flushing, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely Petition for Administrative
Review of an order issued on September 20, 1991, concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to
the issues raised by the petition.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on April 10, 1990 by filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
numerous services in the subject apartment.
The owner was informed on May 17, 1990 and June 27, 1991 of the
Thereafter on September 6, 1991, the subject apartment was
inspected by a DHCR inspector who confirmed that the apartment
floor near the entrance door is uneven; that the kitchen ceiling
light fixture is defective; that the front right side top burner
is inoperative; and that the oven thermostat is defective.
Based on this inspection report, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and the reduction of the stabilized rent.
In this petition, the owner merely alleges without supporting
proof that the "tenant does not live on the premises and that the
violations have been complied with prior to the issuance of the
rent reduction order."
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
Although the owner contends that "the tenant does not live on the
premises" and that repairs were effectuated prior to the
issuance of the Administrator's order, the Commissioner notes
that the owner submitted no evidence to substantiate these
contentions either while the proceeding was pending before the
Administrator or by attachment to his petition, despite ample
opportunity to do so. Accordingly, based on a preponderance of
the evidence, the owner has offered insufficient reason to dis-
turb the Administrator's order, and it should be affirmed.
It is noted that a finding of decreased services, which warrant a
rent reduction, does not attach to the tenant's residency but to
the subject apartment. Thus, the owner's unsubstantiated alle-
gation that the "tenant does not live on the premises" is without
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 District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner