GD 520189 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 520189 RO
                                                  
          RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT INC.              RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: FL 520059 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 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 
          appeal.

               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 
                         replaced.

               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 
          subject apartment.

               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 
          affirmed.

               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.

          ISSUED:



                                                                             
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Acting Deputy Commissioner