BK 110189 RT
                                  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.: BK 110189 RT
                                                  
          VERNELLE JONES                          RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: BE 110136 S
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On November 18, 1987 the above named petitioner-tenant filed 
          a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued November 9, 1987. The order concerned housing 
          accommodations known as Apt 16-B located at 96-08 57th Ave., 
          Corona, N.Y.  The Administrator denied the application of the 
          tenant for a rent reduction and terminated the proceeding.

               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 May 11, 1987 by filing 
          a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein she 
          alleged the following services deficiencies:

                    1.   Entrance front door sill missing,

                    2.   Toilet pipe line is not working properly,

                    3.   Living room windows do not open and close properly,

                    4.   Defective sashes in dining room and bathroom 
                         windows,

                    5.   Water coming into apartment through defective 
                         bedroom window ledge,

                    6.   Bedroom wall is blistering and breaking,

                    7.   Bedroom air conditioner not working properly.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on June 4, 












          BK 110189 RT

          1987 and stated that the tenant had filed a similar complaint with 
          the agency (see Docket No. QS 002169 S) for which a rent reduction 
          had been ordered but that the DHCR had since ordered rent 
          restoration (see Docket No. AE 110070 OR).  The owner also stated 
          that the tenant was refusing to provided access to the apartment 
          for repairs of the entrance door saddle and window problems.
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on June 30, 1987 and 
          revealed the following:

                    1.   Left upper dinette window not working properly,

                    2.   Right bedroom window not working properly,

                    3.   Bedroom window sills leaking water and in need of 
                         repair,

                    4.   Bedroom air conditioner not working,

                    5.   Bedroom walls have peeling paint and plaster and 
                         big crack at north end of wall,

                    6.   Entrance door marble sill broken and piece missing.

          The following services were found to have been maintained:

                    1.   Toilet working properly,

                    2.   Living room windows working properly.

               On October 5, 1987 the owner sent a letter to the 
          Administrator, advising that access had been obtained to the 
          tenant's apartment and that all work had been completed.  The owner 
          further stated that the tenant refused to sign all but one of the 
          work tickets which the owner annexed to the letter.

               On September 24, 1987 the Administrator sent a notice to the 
          parties advising them that a "no access" inspection would be held 
          on October 1, 1987 and that both parties were required to be 
          present.  The tenant was specifically advised that she was required 
          to provide access to the apartment.

               The DHCR inspector appeared on the stipulated date however the 
          tenant was not present and access to the apartment was not 
          afforded.  The inspector's report noted that the owner's 
          representatives were present.
           
               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          November 9, 1987 and denied the application based on the failure of 
          the tenant to provide access to the apartment.







          BK 110189 RT

               On appeal the tenant states that she believed that the 
          inspector would appear on October 12, 1987 and, therefore, she was 
          present on that date.  The tenant also stated that the owner had 
          not completed repairs to her apartment.  On March 1, 1988 the owner 
          filed a response to the petition.  A supplementary response was 
          filed on December 5, 1988.  In both responses the owner stated, in 
          sum, that the Administrator was correct in denying the tenants's 
          application and terminating the proceeding. 

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

               It is clear from the record that the tenant was put on notice 
          that the "no access" inspection would be held on October 1, 1987 
          and not on October 12, 1987 which was a state holiday.  The notice 
          was clear and unambiguous.  The tenant has not offered any 
          acceptable excuse for failing to provide access at the time set 
          forth in the notice.  Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the 
          Administrator was correct in denying the tenant's application for 
          a rent reduction.  The order here under review is, therefore, 
          affirmed.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 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
                                             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