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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: FL630126RT
          THOMAS J. GALLAGHER                     RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: EH630138B

               On January 3, 1992 the above named petitioner-tenant 
          representative timely refiled a Petition for Administrative Review 
          against an order of the Rent Administrator issued September 24, 
          1991. The order concerned various housing accommodations located at 
          3321 Bruckner Blvd., Bronx, N.Y.  The Administrator denied the 
          tenants' complaint of decreased building-wide services and 
          terminated the proceeding.

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

               This proceeding was commenced on August 30, 1990 when 27 
          tenants joined in filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in 
          Building-Wide Services wherein they alleged, in substance, that the 
          owner was not maintaining certain required building-wide services.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on September 
          24, 1990 and stated, in sum, that it was either maintaining 
          required services or that it had investigated the tenants' 
          complaints and made the necessary repairs.
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspection was conducted on March 1, 1991 and 
          revealed the following:

                    1.   Elevator stops level on all floors,

                    2.   Adequate lighting provided to both stairways to 

                    3.   No evidence of defective drain at front stoop 



                    4.   No evidence of defective cement flags in front of 

                    5.   No evidence of peeling paint and plaster in public 
                         areas or basement,

                    6.   No evidence of defective roof wall,

                    7.   No evidence of water seepage at public area walls 
                         and ceilings,

                    8.   Building entrance door is inoperative but vestibule 
                         door lock is operative,

                    9.   No evidence that intercom was ever connected to 

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          September 24, 1991 and terminated the proceeding based on the 
          inspector's above described report.

               On appeal the tenant representative states, in substance, that 
          the results of the physical inspection should be disrgarded because 
          the cited conditions continue to exist.  The petition was served on 
          the owner on January 13, 1992

               The owner filed a response on January 21, 1992 and stated, in 
          sum, that the order here under review was correctly issued and 
          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 DHCR employee who conducted 
          the above described physical inspection on March 1, 1991 is neither 
          a party to these proceedings nor 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 Commissioner notes 
          that the tenants have failed to support their contentions with any 
          evidence to rebut the inspector's report.

               With regard to the issue of defective elevator operation, the 
          Commissioner acknowledges that enforcement of applicable standards 
          regarding elevator operation and safety is under the jurisdiction 
          of the New York City Department of Buildings which has long 
          established, comprehensive procedures and inspection programs in 
          place.  The staff engaged in carrying out these programs has the 
          necessary technical expertise to conduct periodic inspection; to 
          interpret and apply relevant codes, regulations and industry 


          standards and to issue violations. Further, in view of the City's 
          greater experience with elevator enforcement, the City is in a 
          better position than the DHCR to determine appropriate performance 
          standards and ancillary equipment for elevators or varying age and 

               The Commissioner notes that a search of the Department of 
          Building records has revealed that no violations were issued while 
          the complaint was pending before the Administrator.  Therefore, the 
          Commissioner finds that sufficient evidence does not exist to 
          confirm the tenant's complaint regarding the elevator.  The order 
          here under review is affirmed.

               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