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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: FJ210046RT
          JUDITH KESSLER                          RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: FB230103B

               On October 1, 1991 the above named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued August 26, 1991. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 815 Gravesend Road, Brooklyn, 
          N.Y.  The Administrator denied the tenants' complaint for a rent 
          reduction alleging failure to maintain services.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 

               This proceeding was commenced on February 14, 1991 when 40 of 
          the 100 tenants in the subject building filing a Statement of 
          Complaint of Decrease in Building-Wide Services wherein they 
          alleged that the subject building was infested with roaches and 
          water bugs and that the owner failed to exterminate.  The complaint 
          was assigned Docket No. FB230026B.

               On March 5, 1991 the tenant filed a separate complaint wherein 
          they alleged that the owner was failing to maintain other required 
          building-wide services.  The complaint was assigned Docket No. 
          FB230103B.   The Administrator consolidated both proceedings under 
          Docket No. FB230103B.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaints and 
          afforded an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on 
          March 25, 1991 and stated that the building is serviced by an 
          extermination company, that the superintendent posts notice of when 
          the exterminator is coming well in advance and in a public area, 
          that the tenants are advised that they must provide access to the 
          exterminator on the day indicated and that the tenants' statements 
          that no extermination has been done for 4 months is false.  The 


          owner provided copies a letter from the extermination company 
          stating the agreement between the parties as well as copies of 
          extermination reports from March 11, 1991.
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspection was conducted on July 9, 1991.  The 
          inspector reported that there was no evidence of vermin infestation 
          in the public areas, that the intercom is operative and that all 
          services complained of were being maintained at the time of the 

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on August 
          26, 1991 in which the report of the inspector was included and the 
          tenant's complaint was denied.

               On appeal one tenant states that the building is infested with 
          roaches and that the intercom system is not functioning.  The 
          petition was served on the owner on October 28, 1991. 

               The owner filed a response on November 15, 1991 and stated 
          that the order should be affirmed.

               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 physical inspection of the 
          subject building was carried out by a DHCR employee who is neither 
          a party to this proceeding or an adversary.  Numerous prior 
          decisions of the Commissioner have held that the report of a DHCR 
          inspector is entitled to more probative weight than the unsupported 
          allegations of a party to the proceeding.  The Administrator 
          correctly denied the complaint based on this report.  The tenant 
          has not set forth any basis to overturn this order.  The order is 

               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