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
|