GD 420271 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 420271 RO
                                                  
          RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT INC.             RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: FK 420636 S
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On April 20, 1992 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued April 15, 1992. The order concerned housing 
          accommodations known as Apt 5L located at 720 Riverside Drive, 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 November 26, 1991 by 
          filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein she  
          alleged the following services deficiencies:

                    1.   Defective intercom system,

                    2.   Defective paint job.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on January 
          13, 1992 and stated that the intercom system was working properly 
          and that the apartment had been painted but the tenant had refused 
          to allow the owner access to inspect the job and repaint if 
          necessary.
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on March 13, 1992 and 
          revealed the following:

                    1.   Defective intercom,

                    2.   Peeling paint and plaster in living room,












          GD 420271 RO

                    3.   Peeling paint and plaster in bedroom.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on April 
          15, 1992 and ordered a rent reduction of $15.00 per month based on 
          the report of the inspector.

               On appeal the owner states that the intercom has been repaired 
          and the apartment painted.  The owner states that an inspection 
          would have verified that this was true.  Annexed to the petition 
          are two invoices.  The first is dated September 1, 1990 and is 
          offered to show that the intercom system was repaired.  The second 
          is dated July 1, 1991 and is offered to show that the apartment has 
          been painted.

               The tenant filed a response on May 18, 1992 wherein she stated 
          that the paint job done by the owner was not done in a workmanlike 
          manner.  The owner filed a reply on June 22, 1992 and stated that 
          the apartment was painted by a professional contractor and was 
          properly done.

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

               The relevant inquiry the Commissioner must make in this 
          administrative review proceeding is whether the Administrator 
          correctly issued the order here under review based on the record 
          available at the time of issuance.  The Commissioner finds that the 
          Administrator was correct.  It is 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 
          Administrator correctly relied on this report in ordering the rent 
          reduction.

               Pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2202.16 the DHCR may order a rent 
          reduction based on a finding of decreased essential services.  The 
          rent reduction should approximate the decrease in rental value of 
          the housing accommodation because of the decrease.  The 
          Commissioner finds that the Administrator based this decision on 
          the entire record, including the results of the on-site physical 
          inspection conducted on March 13, 1992. The $15.00 per month rent 
          reduction was a reasonable approximation of the decrease in the 
          rental value of the property.  The order here under review is, 
          accordingly, affirmed.

               It is noted that the tenant concedes that the apartment was 
          painted in July 1991 but asserted in the complaint that the job was 
          done in an unworkmanlike manner which the Division's physical 
          inspection confirmed.  Since the complaint was filed in November 
          1991 the owner was on notice that the tenant was complaining about 
          the way the job was done.  The owner's repeated assertion that the 
          apartment was painted in July 1991 is not responsive to the 
          complaint.  Similarly, the evidence regarding repairs to the 






          GD 420271 RO

          intercom predates the complaint and is not relevant to the 
          condition complained of by the tenant and confirmed by the 
          inspection.

               The Commissioner notes that the owner has filed for rent 
          restoration and that this application is currently pending before 
          the DHCR (see Docket No. GD 520049 OR).

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations for 
          New York City 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
                                    






    

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