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.: FG130370RT
BRIDGET HAMEED RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 30, 1991 the above named petitioner-tenant
representative filed a Petition for Administrative Review against
an order of the Rent Administrator issued July 2, 1991. The order
concerned various housing accommodations located at 37-05 88th
Street, Jackson Heights, N.Y. The Administrator denied the
tenants' complaint wherein they sought a rent reduction based on
the failure of the owner to maintain required services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
This proceeding was commenced on October 2, 1990 when 27 of
the 76 building tenants filed a Statement of Complaint of Decrease
in Building-Wide Services wherein they alleged, in substance, that
the owner was not maintaining certain required building services.
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded
an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on December
13, 1990 and stated, in sum, that it was maintaining all required
services or that it had investigated the conditions cited in the
complaint and made the required repairs.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspection was conducted on January 18, 1991. The
inspector reported that the public area walls, excluding the lobby,
were dirty, that the incinerator rooms on all floors were dirty and
that the courtyard and adjoining alleys are dirty and have
scattered debris. The inspector further reported that all other
services were being maintained.
On February 8, 1991 the Administrator notified the owner of
the results of the inspection and afforded it 20 days to make
repairs and provide proof thereof. On February 28, 1991 the owner
submitted a response to this notice and stated that it was in the
process of obtaining an estimate for the painting of the public
area walls and that the incinerator rooms and courtyard are cleaned
on a regular basis.
On March 27, 1991 the owner sent a further response to the
Administrator and stated that the painting in the public areas had
The Administrator ordered an inspection of the subject
building to confirm the statements of the owner as set forth in the
above described responses. The inspection was held on April 19,
1991. The inspector reported that the three conditions cited in
the prior inspection had been corrected.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on July
2, 1991. The Administrator found that the owner was maintaining
the services which the tenants complained of. Based on the reports
of the inspectors, the complaint was denied.
On appeal the tenant representative submits photographic
evidence to support her claim that services are not being
maintained and that the Administrator erred in denying the
complaint. The petition was served on the owner on August 16,
1991. The owner filed a response on August 23, 1991 and
stated that the order here under review should be affirmed based on
the two physical inspections described above.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the photographic evidence
submitted by the tenants is undated and, therefore, there is no way
to ascertain if these pictures represent evidence of the conditions
as they existed when the complaint was pending. The Administrator
ordered two physical inspections of the subject building. Both
inspections were carried out by DHCR employees who are neither
parties nor adversaries to this proceeding. Numerous prior orders
of the Commissioner have held that the reports of DHCR inspectors
are entitled to more probative weight than the allegations of
parties to the proceeding.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly
investigated the complaint herein and that the order denying the
complaint based on the physical inspections was correct. The order
here under review is affirmed.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA