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
                                   






    

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