BK 110195 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 110195 RT

            JIM ILKHAN,                 DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                        NO.: BA 110041 S

                   PETITIONER
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
     On November 17, 1987 the above named petitioner-tenant filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator  issued  November 4,  1987.   The  order  concerned
housing  accommodations known as Apt. 416 located at 84-50  169th
Street,   Jamaica,  N.Y.  wherein  the  Administrator  terminated
peti-tioner's  complaint  of  failure  to  provide  required   or
essential services.

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

      The  tenant  commenced this action on January  6,  1987  by
filing  a  Statement of Complaint of Decrease in  Services.   The
following services deficiencies were alleged:

          1.  Leaking faucets.
          
          2.  Broken window.
          
          3.  Broken refrigerator.
          
          4.  Holes in walls.
          
          5.  Apartment in need of painting.
          
          6.  Defective stove.
          
          7.  Broken window blinds.
      The  owner  was  served with a copy of  the  complaint  and
afforded  an opportunity to respond.  The owner filed a  response
on February 9, 1987 and alleged the following:

          1.  The faucets were repaired.
          
          2.  New windows installed throughout apartment.
          
          3.  Refrigerator working properly.
          
          4.  Order issued to paint and plaster.
          
          5.  Stove in satisfactory condition.
          
          6.  Blinds functioning properly.
          
          7.  New windows prevent water seepage.
          
      The owner also provided the Administrator with two letters,
dated February 18 and March 16, 1987, which had been sent to  the
tenant.   In these letters the owner stated it was ready, willing
and able to make repairs and paint, but that numerous attempts to
gain  access to the apartment had been unsuccessful.   The  owner
requested the tenant's cooperation so that the repairs  could  be
effectuated.

      The  Administrator  ordered a physical  inspection  of  the
premises,  which was carried out on June 11, 1987.  The inspector
reported  six services deficiencies in the apartment.  Given  the
owner's allegations regarding lack of access, as set forth in the
two  letters described above, the Administrator ordered a  second
inspection.  This inspection was of the "no access" type and took
place  on  October 13, 1987 after notice had been  given  to  all
parties.

      The DHCR inspector reported that he arrived at the tenant's
apartment  along with the Managing Agent of the  building  and  a
handyman.   The tenant refused to allow the agent access  to  the
apartment and refused to provide a reason for failing to  do  so.
The inspector duly reported these facts to the Administrator.  On
November  4, 1987 the Administrator issued the order  here  under
review wherein the complaint was denied.

      On  appeal,  the  tenant states that he  never  denied  the
inspector  access  to the apartment, and that the  inspector  was
provided  access  for the first inspection.  The  owner  filed  a
response  to the petition on January 18, 1988 wherein  it  stated
that  the  tenant did not provide access on October 13, 1987  and
that the Administrator's determination should be affirmed.


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

      While it is not disputed that the tenant did provide access
to the DHCR inspector on June 11, 1987, it was incumbent upon him
to  also  provide access on October 13, 1987 when the  owner  had
personnel available who were ready, willing, and able to  proceed
with  the  necessary repairs.  The tenant's failure to admit  the
owner's  agent and handyman to the apartment without explanation,
as  reported  by  the  inspector, gave the  Administrator  proper
grounds to issue the order here under review.  Petitioner has not
set  forth  any  grounds to overturn the order.   The  order  is,
therefor, 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
                                   Acting 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