HE130050RT/HI130144RT
                                  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
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.: HE130050RT
                                                               HI130144RT
          THOMAS KILLIP                           RENT
          HELGA DIAZ                              ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET    
                                                  NO.: EF130074OR
                                 PETITIONERS            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               The above referenced administrative appeals have been 
          consolidated as both contain common issues of law and fact.

               The above named petitioner-tenants filed timely Petitions for 
          Administrative Review against an order of the Rent Administrator 
          issued April 23, 1993. The order concerned various housing 
          accommodations located at 83-09 Brevoort Street, Kew Gardens, N.Y.  
          The Administrator granted the owner's rent restoration application.  

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 
          appeal.

               The owner commenced this proceeding on June 11, 1990 by filing 
          an application for rent restoration wherein it stated, in sum, that 
          it had restored all services for which a rent reduction order 
          bearing Docket No. DF130131B, had been issued.  The Commissioner 
          notes that the rents had been ordered reduced based the following 
          findings: 

                    1.   Inadequate lighting in lobby area,

                    2.   Peeling paint and plaster at bulkhead walls and 
                         ceilings, second floor wall between apartments 2C 
                         and 2D as well as first floor wall crack between 
                         apartments 1C and 1D,

                    3.   Cracked pane of glass in window of laundry room,

                    4.   Fire escape pitted with rust,

                    5.   Hallway and compactor rooms in need of sweeping and 
                         mopping,












          HE130050RT/HI130144RT

                    6.   Elevator does not stop level on each floor,

                    7.   Defective intercom system with no communication 
                         from intercom to apartments,

                    8.   Defective tenant access door from street to garage,

                    9.   The garbage collection located in the basement has 
                         no ventilation and foul odors.

          The Commissioner further notes that the order was modified to 
          delete the findings regarding the broken glass, rusted fire escapes 
          and elevator leveling (see Docket No. EF130103RO).

               The tenants were served with a copy of the application and 
          afforded an opportunity to respond. Petitioner Diaz filed a 
          response on August 3, 1990 and stated, in sum, that the owner had 
          restored some, but not all of the services set forth in the rent 
          reduction order.  Petitioner Killip did not file a response.
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspection was conducted on October 22, 1990 and 
          confirmed the owner's allegation to the effect that it had restored 
          services.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on April 
          22, 1993 and granted the owner's application based on the 
          inspector's report.

               On appeal both petitioners state, in sum, that the owner has 
          not restored all services and that, therefore, the order here under 
          review was erroneously issued.  The petitions were served on the 
          owner.

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

               The Commissioner finds that the Administrator's order was 
          correctly based on the report of the DHCR inspector.  The inspector 
          is neither a party to this proceeding nor an adversary and the 
          report is entitled to more probative weight than the unsupported 
          allegations of the tenants. The order here under review is 
          affirmed.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and 
          Rent and Eviction Regulations it is 












          HE130050RT/HI130144RT

               ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, 
          denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                             
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             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