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
|
