GC 210106 RO
                                  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.: GC 210106 RO
                                                  
               G & G REALTY ASSOCIATES            DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: FF 210071 OR
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On March 5, 1992 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued February 13, 1992. The order concerned housing 
          accommodations known as Apt 2F located at 75 East 21st Street, 
          Brooklyn, N.Y.  The Administrator denied the owner application to 
          restore rent.                         

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

               The owner commenced this proceeding on June 10, 1991 by filing 
          an Application to Restore Rent wherein it stated that it had 
          restored services for which a rent reduction order (see Docket No. 
          BI 210404 S) had been issued.  The owner attached to the 
          application a copy of a stipulation of settlement, dated April 12, 
          1988 and entered into in Housing Court, wherein both parties agreed 
          that violations reported by the tenant had been corrected.  The 
          owner stated that the violations corrected were the same ones which 
          formed the basis of the services reduction proceeding. 

               The tenant was served with a copy of the application and 
          afforded an opportunity to respond. The tenant filed a response on 
          June 24, 1991 and stated that, while repairs had been made as of 
          April, 1988, the ceiling was still leaking.  The tenant stated that 
          the leak had caused extensive damage to the kitchen fixtures. 
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on January 17 and January 
          22, 1992 and revealed evidence of rodent (mice) infestation in the 
          apartment.  The following services were found to have been 
          maintained:













          GC 210106 RO


                    1.   No evidence of defects to the bathroom ceiling,

                    2.   No evidence of defective bathtub hot water faucet,

                    3.   No evidence of defects to living room walls and 
                         ceilings,

                    4.   No evidence of defective apartment entrance door,

                    5.   No evidence of roach infestation in apartment.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          February 13, 1992 and denied the owner's application based on the 
          inspector's report.

               On appeal the owner states that there is a monthly 
          exterminator service supplied by a licensed exterminator.  The 
          owner attaches a letter, dated February 20, 1992, from that 
          exterminator wherein the company states that services are available 
          for all tenants in the building on the third Tuesday of each month.  
          The company further states that it has posted signs to notify the 
          tenants of the availability of said services.  Finally, the letter 
          stated that the tenant in question refused to provide access to the 
          apartment from August of 1991 through January of 1992.

               The owner makes the following additional arguments in 
          requesting that the order here under review be reversed:

                    1.   The tenant stated in court on March 2, 1992 that 
                         there was no mouse infestation in her apartment,

                    2.   The tenant had herself informed the agency that 
                         repairs had been completed.  The owner submits a 
                         letter, dated September 20, 1991, from a DHCR 
                         Enforcement Officer, wherein the officer states 
                         that the tenant had so informed the agency.

          The balance of the petition was a request by the owner to reopen 
          the original rent reduction proceeding.

               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               It is well settled law that the report of a DHCR inspector is 
          entitled to more probative weight than the unsupported allegations 
          of a party to the proceeding.  The owner has failed to rebut the 
          report of rodent infestation.  The letter from the exterminator is 
          insufficient to show that the owner attempted to correct the 
          problem of the infestation.  The claim of lack of access is wholly 
          unsupported with particular dates and times that the exterminator 
          requested access and was denied.  






          GC 210106 RO


               The Commissioner notes that the owner did not supply a copy of 
          the transcript of the remarks allegedly made by the tenant in open 
          court.  Therefore, the owner's statement, standing alone, is 
          insufficient to prove that the tenant did actually make the 
          statement that there is no rodent infestation.  With regard to the 
          owner's assertion that the original rent reduction order did not 
          include rodent infestation, the Commissioner notes that the vermin 
          infestation condition is inclusive of roaches, mice, rodents and 
          rats.  Therefore, the fact that the inspector reported evidence of 
          mice infestation was sufficient for the Administrator to deny the 
          application.  Finally, the fact that the tenant may have stated, in 
          a DHCR enforcement proceeding, that repairs had been made has no 
          bearing on the processing of the instant application for rent 
          restoration, especially where the tenant filed a response stating 
          that services had not been restored.

               The Commissioner notes that this rent restoration proceeding, 
          and the accompanying appeal therefrom, are totally inappropriate 
          avenues to seek reopening of the rent reduction order.  That order 
          is now final, pursuant to statute, and the owner may not further 
          challenge it before the Commissioner.  The order here under review 
          is affirmed.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and 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.

          ISSUED:



                                                                             
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Acting 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