STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
Keith J. Kessler,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named petitioner-tenant filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodation known as 426 East 14 Street, Apt. 5FW, New York, N.Y.
Wherein the tenant's complaint was denied based on a finding that
the tenant failed to provide access to the inspector.
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 the petition.
The tenant commenced the proceeding below by filing a complaint on
December 7, 1987 asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
the heat and hot water services in the subject apartment.
In an answer, the owner stated that the heat and hot water services
have always been maintained, however, in November 1987, there were
problems with the oil burner which were immediately corrected.
On January 15, 1988, a DHCR inspector was unable to gain access to
the subject apartment to conduct the inspection. Thereafter, a
second inspection on February 1, 1988 conducted by a DHCR inspector
who came to the subject apartment and was advised by the tenant
that the heat and hot water services were adequate in the apartment
at the time of the inspection. This was confirmed by the
In the petition for administrative review, the tenant states, in
substance, that he did not receive the first inspection notice in
time for access because it was addressed improperly, and that
access was given for the second inspection on February 1, 1988,
however, the inspector did not enter the apartment and that they
discussed in the stairwell that there was hot water available but
no heat. The tenant further states that the inspector advised him
that the temperature was too high outside to be entitled to heat
service and that a new complaint should be filed when heat is
The DHCR served a copy of the petition on the owner on May 3, 1988.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is
required to order the rent reduction, upon application by the
tenant where it is found that the owner has failed to maintain
required services. The tenant's petition does not establish any
basis for modifying or revoking the Administrator's order which
determined that a rent reduction was not warranted. Although the
order incorrectly states that the tenant denied access to the
inspector, the record reveals that there was an on-site inspection
on February 1, 1988, at which time heat and hot water services were
found to be adequate.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly
determined that the owner had not failed to provide required
services based on the evidence of record, including the on-site
physical inspection of the subject apartment and properly
determined that a rent reduction was not warranted.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, 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,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA