GD 520189 RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: GD 520189 RO
RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT INC. RENT
NO.: FL 520059 S
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 6H 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
The tenant commenced this proceeding on December 3, 1991 by
filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein the
following services deficiencies were alleged:
1. Hall window does not work properly,
2. Apartment door knob needs replacing,
3. Window in second bedroom blown out and never
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded
an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on January 6,
1992 and stated that the hall windows had been replaced and that
the door was fixed by the superintendent.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on March 12, 1992 and
revealed the following:
1. Defective apartment door knob,
GD 520189 RO
2. Defective window sash/frame in second bedroom.
The inspector also reported that there was no hallway window in the
The Administrator issued the order here under review on April
15, 1992 and ordered a rent reduction totaling $4.00 per month
based on the report of the inspector.
On appeal the owner states that repairs were made to the
subject apartment and also states that an inspection was never done
to verify the tenant's allegations. The owner annexed an invoice,
dated June 30, 1990, which is offered to show that repairs had been
made to the window in question.
The tenant filed a response on May 2, 1992 wherein she stated
that the owner's repairs had not been done in a workmanlike manner.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The relevant inquiry before the Commissioner in deciding this
administrative appeal is whether the Administrator correctly issued
the order here under review based on the evidence contained in the
record at the time of issuance. The Commissioner finds that the
Administrator was correct. The Administrator relied on the report
of the DHCR inspector. Numerous prior cases have held that such a
report is entitled to more probative weight than the unsupported
allegations of a party to the proceeding. Despite the owner's lack
of knowledge, a DHCR inspection was conducted on March 12, 1992.
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 described above. The $4.00 per month rent reduction was
a reasonable exercise of discretion and approximated the decrease
in rental value. Therefore, the order here under review is
The Commissioner notes that the owner has filed an application
for rent restoration and that this application is currently pending
before the DHCR (see Docket No. GD 520149 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,
GD 520189 RO
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner