STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  FG130370RT
          BRIDGET HAMEED                          RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: EJ130158B

               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 
          been completed.

               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
                                             Deputy Commissioner


TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name