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.: GB620447RO
HELEN BRANDT RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 28, 1992 the above named petitioner-tenant filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued January 28, 1992. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 2100 East Tremont Ave., Bronx,
N.Y. The Administrator granted the owner's rent restoration
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The owner commenced this proceeding on April 21, 1989 by
filing a rent restoration application wherein it alleged that it
had restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing
Docket No BH610070B had been issued, based on a finding that the
basement stairwell walls require painting and the elevator floor
indicator is inoperable.
The owner was served with a copy of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The petitioner-tenant herein
filed a response on July 25, 1991 and stated, in sum, that based on
her personal observations the owner had not restored services and
that, therefore, the application should be denied.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspection was conducted on September 4, 1991 and
revealed that there was no evidence of peeling paint on the
basement walls and that the elevator floor indicators were
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
January 28, 1992 and granted the owner's application based on the
report of the inspector.
On appeal the tenant states that she inspected the basement on
February 25, 1992 and found evidence that the area had not been
restored. The petition was served on the owner on April 6, 1992.
The owner filed a response on April 28, 1992 and stated that
the tenant's petition should be denied because the tenant had
inspected non-tenant areas of the basement that were irrelevant to
the proceeding and in which no tenant had no authority to be. The
owner also stated that it had repainted the basement in April, 1992
thereby correcting any conditions cited in the petition.
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 basement area in question was
inspected by a DHCR employee who is neither a party to this
proceeding nor an adversary. Numerous prior decisions of the
Commissioner have stated that the report of a DHCR inspector is
entitled to greater probative weight than the unsupported
allegations of a party to the proceeding. The tenant has failed to
rebut the inspector's report. The order here under review is
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and
Rent and Eviction Regulations 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