GC 230110 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 230110 RO
                                                  
               CHARLIE ALSTON                     DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: FD 230289 OR
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On March 9, 1992  the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued March 4, 1992. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 7 Greene Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y.  
          The Administrator denied the owner's application for rent 
          restoration based on the owner's failure to provide access to the 
          building to a DHCR inspector.

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

               The owner's agent commenced this proceeding on April 30, 1991 
          by filing an Application to Restore Rent based on the restoration 
          of all services for which a rent reduction order (see Docket No. DE 
          230008 B) had been issued.

               The application was served on the tenants and an opportunity 
          to respond was afforded.  Three tenants filed responses.  One 
          tenant stated that his intercom did not work and that the hallways 
          had not been painted.  The second tenant stated that the lobby 
          floor was in need of repair.  The third tenant's response was not 
          relevant to the issue of rent restoration.
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspector attempted to gain access to the building 
          on January 10, 1992 but reported that the main door was locked.  
          The Administrator then sent a notice to the owner informing it that 
          the inspector would return on January 21, 1991 and requesting that 
          access be provided on that date.  When the inspector appeared on 
          January 21, however, no access was afforded.  The inspector 
          reported that a tenant who answered the intercom instructed him to 
          get a key to the building at the clinic on the first floor but an 












          GC 230110 RO

          employee at the clinic said she did not have a key for the main 
          door of the building.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          February 27, 1992 and ordered that the owner's application be 
          denied and that the proceeding be terminated based on the failure 
          of the owner to afford access to the inspector.

               On appeal the owner's agent states that he personally was 
          present all day at the building on January 21, 1992 but that the 
          DHCR inspector did not appear.  The owner asserts that an inspector 
          was admitted who claimed to be from the Fire Department.  Two 
          tenants filed responses wherein they stated that services had not 
          been restored.  The owner filed a reply on May 14, 1992 and 
          contradicted the tenants.

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

               The owner's contention regarding the access issue is 
          contradicted by the report of the DHCR inspector who twice 
          unsuccessfully attempted to gain access to the building.  The owner 
          was notified in advance that the second attempt to gain access 
          would be made on January 21, 1992.  The inspector's report is 
          entitled to more probative weight than the unsupported allegations 
          of a party to the proceeding.  The order here under review was 
          correctly issued and is, therefore, affirmed.  This order is issued 
          without prejudice to the owner's right to reapply for rent 
          restoration, wherein the owner should give instructions on 
          arranging access to the inspector.

               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