GD510187RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
----------------------------------x
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: GD510187RO
MAYFLOWER DEVELOPMENT CORP. RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: FI510772S
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 9, 1992 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued March 13, 1992. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt 1B located at 425 Riverside Drive, New
York, N.Y. The Administrator directed restoration of services and
ordered reduction of the stabilized legal rent.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on September 30, 1991 by
filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein she
alleged, in substance, that the owner was not maintaining certain
required services.
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded
an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on October
29, 1991 and stated that repairs in the apartment are or were being
completed and that it had alleviated the mice infestation problem.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on February 25, 1992 and
revealed the following:
1. Water in kitchen cloudy,
2. Windows in apartment seeping air; frames and sashes
are peeling; unable to open top or bottom sashes.
The following services were found to have been maintained:
GD510187RO
1. No evidence of vermin infestation in apartment,
2. Bathroom water potable.
The inspector also reported inability to determine the buzzing
sounds complained of by the tenant.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on March
13, 1992 and ordered a rent reduction of an amount equal to the
most recent guideline adjustment based on the report of the DHCR
inspector.
On appeal the owner states that it had filed a response to the
complaint and that, as stated in that response, all repairs were
made to the subject apartment. The petition was served on the
tenant on April 30, 1992.
The tenant filed a response on May 6, 1992 and stated that a
mice infestation problem still existed in her apartment.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code a
tenant may apply to the DHCR for a rent reduction and the
Administrator shall reduce the rent upon determining that the owner
is failing to maintain required services. Repairs and maintenance
ore included within the definition of required services pursuant to
Section 2520.6 (r) of the Code. The Commissioner finds that the
Administrator based this determination on the entire record
including the results of the on-site physical inspection described
above. That inspection was conducted by a DHCR employee who is
neither a party or an adversary to this proceeding. The report,
which confirmed the failure to maintain services for which a rent
reduction is warranted, is entitled to more probative weight than
the unsupported allegations of a party to the proceeding. The
owner has not set forth any basis for overturning or modifying the
order here under review. That order is, therefore, affirmed.
The Commissioner notes that the owner has filed for rent
restoration and that this application is currently pending before
the DHCR (Docket No. GE510224OR).
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
GD510187RO
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
