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

          APPEAL OF                             DOCKET NO.: FL610176RT 
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                DOCKET NO.: EG610202S       
                    Donald Reilly,

               On December 26, 1991, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed 
          a petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          November 22, 1991, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the 
          housing accommodation known as 2979 Marion Avenue, Bronx, N.Y., 
          Apt. 4A, wherein the Administrator determined that a diminution of 
          service had occurred and reduced the rent to the level in effect 
          prior to the last rent guideline increase which commenced before 
          the effective date of the order.  Based on an inspection held on 
          October 10, 1991, the rent was reduced because of the following 
          service deficiencies:

               1. Leaks and stains foyer closet.
               2. Paint and plaster apartment-wide.
               3. Vermin control.
               4. Medicine cabinet defective.
               5. Bathroom towel rack.
               6. Missing shades/blinds.
               7. Floor covering bathroom.
               8. Walls in bathroom.

               The Rent Administrator also directed restoration of all 

               Other conditions cited by the tenant in the complaint were 
          found to have been corrected.

               The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the 
          record and has carefully considered that portion of the record 
          relevant to the issue raised by the administrative appeal.

               On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted that the owner was 
          not maintaining seven services, which the Administrator found were 
          not defective.


               The petition was served on the owner on February 24, 1992.

               The owner answered the petition, on March 6, 1992, alleging 
          that the issues raised in the appeal were correctly decided by the 
          Administrator in accordance with the inspection report.

               After a careful consideration of the entire evidence or record 
          the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

               Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code,

                    "A tenant may apply to the DHCR for a reduction of the 
                     legal regulated rent to the level in effect prior to the 
                     most recent guidelines adjustment, and the DHCR shall so 
                     reduce the rent for the period for which it is found  
                     that the owner has failed to maintain required    

               Required services are defined in Section 2520,6(r) to include 
          repairs and maintenance.

               A review of the record reveals that the service complaints 
          specified in the tenant's petition were being maintained by the 
          owner on October 10, 1991, the date of the DHCR inspection.  The 
          inspector investigated all claims made by the tenant and found that 
          those service items specified in the PAR were, in fact being 

               The Commissioner notes that the tenant's allegations on appeal 
          are unsupported by any substantiating evidence and that there is no 
          evidence contained in the record which was before the Administrator 
          to indicate that conditions in the subject apartment were other 
          than as found by the inspector during his October 10, 1991 visit.  
          Accordingly, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the 
          Commissioner finds that the tenant has offered insufficient reason 
          to disturb the Administrator's determination.

               The Commissioner notes that while the tenant questions the 
          findings of fact, the record clearly reflects those findings by 
          virtue of the DHCR inspection which occurred on October 10, 1991.  
          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator 
          properly determined that the owner had been maintaining those 
          services specified in the tenant's PAR based on the evidence of 
          record, including the results of a physical inspection of the 
          subject apartment, and correctly determined the tenant's rent 
          reduction application.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law 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.


                                                  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