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.: FJ210046RT
JUDITH KESSLER RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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