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.: CA110161RO
Celia Garcia/ Jose Garcia, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: AE120500S
PETITIONER PREMISES: 48-11 45 St.
Apt. No. 3B
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on December 14, 1987 concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by this administrative appeal.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on June 9, 1986 by filing a
complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment.
In an answer filed on June 24, 1986, the owner stated in substance
that the tenant refused access. The owner submitted copies of a work
order and a return receipt of a certified mailing.
On July 10, 1987, an on-site inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed that there were
cracks in the living room ceiling; the kichen sink pipes leaked;
there were peeling paint and plaster and spots in the ceiling and
walls throughout the apartment; and the refrigerator gasket was
broken causing air seepage.
A Notice of Inspection (For Access) was mailed to the tenant and the
owner, directing them to be present to ensure access to the premises
on October 20, 1987 at 9:00-9:30 AM, stating that a DHCR inspector
would be present at this time and that failure to keep this
appointment should result in a determination based solely on the
evidence in the record.
On October 20, 1987, all the parties were present. The DCHR
inspector reported that the tenant allowed access, and that the
owner's electrician merely changed the florescent bulb and other
light fixtures in the apartment.
Based on the evidence in record, including the results of the two
inspections, the Administrator directed the restoration of services
and reduced the rent as follows:
1. The ceilings and walls throughout the aparment
are peeling and plaster. 10% maximum
2. The refrigerator gasket is broken. $5.00
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends that
she never received the complaint because it was mailed to the wrong
In answer, the tenant asserts in substance that the owner knew about
the complaint; and that the defective ceiling and walls, and the
broken refrigerator gasket still exist.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
In the instant case, the owner's petition does not establish any
basis for modifying or revoking the Administrator's order which
determined that the owner was not maintaining required services
based on physical inspections, confirming the existence of defective
conditions for which a rent reduction is warranted.
The claim that the owner failed to receive the complaint is belied
by the record. The owner answered the complaint; the owner was at
the inspection for access.
Accordingly, the Administrator's determination was in all respect
proper and is hereby sustained.
The owner's rent restoration applications were denied, as follows:
CC120102OR on October 12, 1988 and DG120102OR on April 5, 1990.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA