GD 420036 RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: GD 420036 RO
          SHAHID LATIF FOR                         RENT
          JOMIL REALTY CO.                                         ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                   NO.: EC 420431 S 

               On April 6, 1992 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued March 13, 1992. The order concerned housing 
          accommodations known as Apt 54 located at 2372 Amsterdam Ave., 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 

               The tenant commenced this proceeding on March 9, 1990 by 
          filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein he  
          alleged the following services deficiencies:

                    1.   Broken windows,

                    2.   Leaks from ceilings,

                    3.   Opening in bathtub through which mice are coming 
                         into apartment.

               The Commissioner notes that the tenant filed an additional 
          complaint on October 8, 1990 (see Docket No. EJ 520466 S) and 
          alleged that rain water was coming through the ceiling because of 
          a leaking roof and that the apartment contained defective windows.  
          The Administrator issued an order on December 2, 1991 wherein both 
          proceedings were consolidated under Docket No. EC 420431 S.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaints and 
          afforded an opportunity to respond. The owner failed to respond.
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 

          GD 420036 RO

          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on February 18, 1992 and 
          revealed the following:

                    1.   Bathroom walls have peeling paint and plaster, 
                         holes and water stains,

                    2.   No tiles in area of bath tub; hole in floor,

                    3.   Evidence of vermin infestation found in apartment.

          The following services were found to have been maintained:

                    1.   No evidence of defective windows,

                    2.   No evidence of leak from front room ceiling,

                    3.   No evidence of defective bathroom sink,

                    4.   No evidence of leak stains throughout apartment. 

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on March 
          13, 1992 and ordered a rent reduction of an amount equal to the 
          most recent guideline adjustment based on the report of the DHCR 

               On appeal the owner states that the tenant has a new bathroom 
          containing a new floor, tiles, toilet, pipes, shower body, door and 
          marble saddle.  The owner also states that extermination services 
          are available and that information regarding this service is posted 
          in the lobby.  The owner submitted photographic evidence to 
          corroborate its claim regarding the bathroom repairs.

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

               It is a settled principle of administrative law that the scope 
          of review in an administrative appeal proceeding is limited to 
          facts or evidence presented to the Rent Administrator unless it can 
          be shown that such facts or evidence could not have been presented.  
          In this case the owner failed to file an answer to the complaint 
          although afforded proper notice by the Administrator.  Therefore, 
          the Commissioner cannot consider the defenses raised by the owner 
          at this time.  The Commissioner does note, however, that the 
          owner's allegations in the petitions are contradicted by the report 
          of the DHCR inspector.  Numerous prior decisions have held that 
          such a report 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 and the Administrator shall reduce the rent based 
          on a finding of decreased services.  Pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2520.6 
          (r), repairs and maintenance fall within the definition of required 

          GD 420036 RO

          services.  The Commissioner finds that the Administrator based this 
          decision on the entire record, including the results of the on-site 
          physical inspection conducted on February 18, 1992.  The order here 
          under review is affirmed.

               The owner may file for rent restoration when services have 
          been fully restored.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it 

               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.


                                             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