BK 110189 RT
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.: BK 110189 RT
VERNELLE JONES RENT
NO.: BE 110136 S
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
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
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
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,
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA