GD 410273 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.: GD 410273 RO
                                                  
          STUART MILLER                           RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: ED 410307 S
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On April 27, 1992 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued March 23, 1992. The order concerned housing 
          accommodations known as Apt 2 located at 54 Jane Street, New York, 
          N.Y.  The Administrator ordered a rent reduction for failure to 
          maintain required services.  

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

               The tenant commenced this proceeding on April 4, 1990 by 
          filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein  
          the following services deficiencies were alleged:

                    1.   Glass in sliding door broken,

                    2.   Peeling paint and plaster in bathroom.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on May 18, 
          1990 and stated that it had entered into an agreement with the 
          tenants to make repairs.
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on February 24, 1992 and 
          revealed that the sliding door had broken glass.  The inspector 
          also reported that there was no evidence of peeling paint and 
          plaster in the bathroom.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on March 
          23, 1992 and ordered a rent reduction of an amount equal to the 
          most recent guideline adjustment based on the report of the 












          GD 410273 RO

          inspector. 

               On appeal the owner states that the broken glass had been 
          repaired prior to the issuance of the order here under review and 
          that an additional inspection would confirm this to be true.  The 
          tenants filed a response on May 28, 1992 and stated that the glass 
          had not been replaced or repaired. 

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

               The central inquiry before the Commissioner in deciding this 
          administrative appeal is whether the Administrator was correct in 
          issuing the order here under review based on the evidence in the 
          record at the time of issuance.  The Administrator was correct and 
          the order here under review is affirmed.  The Administrator 
          properly relied on the report of the physical inspection conducted 
          on February 24, 1992.  The owner's statement in the petition, to 
          the effect that services have been restored, is totally unsupported 
          by any evidence, is contradicted by the tenants, and is at variance 
          with the report of the inspector.  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.

               Pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2523.4 a tenant may apply to the DHCR for 
          a rent reduction based on the failure of the owner to maintain 
          required services and the agency is required to reduce the rent 
          upon a finding that services have not been maintained.  Repairs and 
          maintenance are included within the definition of required services 
          pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2520.6 (r).  The Commissioner finds that the 
          Administrator based this determination on the entire record, 
          including the results of the on-site physical inspection described 
          above.

               The Commissioner notes that the owner has filed for rent 
          restoration and that this application is currently pending before 
          the DHCR (see Docket No. GE 410065 OR).

               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 






          GD 410273 RO

          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