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
|
