FL 210089 RT
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.: FL 210089 RT
CARMEN PADILLA RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: FG 210030 OR
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 17, 1991 the above named petitioner-tenant filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued November 13, 1991. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt 3R located at 1522 Jefferson Avenue,
Brooklyn, N.Y. The Administrator ordered the tenant's rent
restored.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding on July 3, 1991 by filing
an Application to Restore Rent wherein he stated that the decreased
services found by the Administrator in an order bearing Docket No.
CJ 210098 HW had been restored.
The tenant was served with a copy of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The tenant filed a response on
August 6, 1991 and disputed the owner's assertion that services had
been restored.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on September 30, 1991 and
revealed that the hot water temperature in the bathroom and kitchen
was 132 degrees.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
November 13, 1991 and ordered rent restoration effective August 1,
1991.
On appeal the tenant states that six days after the
Administrator's order was issued, inspectors from the City of New
York found the hot water temperature apartment 2R to be 90 degrees.
FL 210089 RT
The inspectors also allegedly found the hot water temperature to be
inadequate in the owner's basement apartment and informed him that
he was in violation of the building code. The owner did not file
a response.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The relevant inquiry in deciding this administrative appeal is
whether the Administrator was correct in issuing the order here
under review based on the record at the time of issuance. The
Commissioner finds that the Administrator was correct. Numerous
prior orders of the Commissioner have stated that a physical
inspection conducted by a DHCR inspector is entitled to greater
probative weight than the unsupported assertions of a party to the
proceeding. The Commissioner notes that the tenant supplied no
proof of her statements in the petition and the fact that
inspectors from other government agencies found services
deficiencies in other apartments bears no relevance on the issue of
whether that order was correct at the time it was issued. The
order here under review is affirmed.
This order is issued without prejudice to the right of the
tenant to file a new complaint with the DHCR alleging failure to
supply adequate heat and hot water should the facts so warrant.
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
|
