CE210285RO

                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                                  92-31 UNION HALL
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433





          ------------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.:
                                                       CE210285RO
                    S. Lasher D/B/A Glen Co.,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:
                                                       BC210152OR

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



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On May 6, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on April 7, 
          1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 38-02 Glenwood Road, Apt. 1-C, Brooklyn, 
          N.Y., wherein the Administrator denied the owner's application for 
          rent restoration, based upon an inspection of the premises on 
          February 16, 1988, which disclosed that the bedroom and bathroom 
          doors weren't closing and locking properly; that the basin faucet 
          was leaking and further that the faucet washers were defective.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issue raised by the administrative appeal.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly denied 
          the owner's application for rent restoration based upon a finding 
          that services were not fully restored.  

          On November 20, 1987, the owner filed a rent restoration 
          application alleging that those service items, which were the 
          subject of the rent reduction order dated December 16, 1986, were 
          restored.
















          CE210285RO

          The tenant filed an answer to the owner's application alleging that 
          the repairs made by the owner were completed in an unworkmanlike 
          manner.

          In this petition, the owner states, in substance, that it was not 
          notified of the inspection report and thus not afforded the 
          opportunity to repair these defective conditions prior to the 
          issuance of the Administrator's order.  The petitioner cites ARL- 
          60350-Q  wherein a proceeding was remanded to the Administrator on 
          the basis that an inspection request and report were not served on 
          the owner prior to the issuance of the Administrator's order to 
          provide the owner with an opportunity to comment on the inspection 
          report.

          The owner also contended that the DHCR Compliance Bureau mailed a 
          letter, dated November 19, 1987, to the tenant, which stated in 
          substance, that in recognition of the tenant's statement that all 
          repairs were restored to her satisfaction, the proceedings were 
          being closed.  The owner claims that this letter should be relied 
          on and that full rent restoration should have been granted.

          The petition was served on the tenant on July 14, 1988, but the 
          tenant failed to file an answer to the petition.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          Administrative policy and precedent do not require that an owner in 
          this type of case involving decreased services within an individual 
          apartment be given a copy of the inspection results, and the Courts 
          have upheld this procedure (Empress Manor Apartments v. NYSDHCR, 
          538 N.Y.S. 2d 49, 147 A.D. 2d 642, February 21, 1989).  The 
          Commissioner notes that the Administrative review opinion referred 
          to by petitioner concerning a rent control apartment was issued 
          shortly after the Division's takeover of the duties of the Rent 
          Commissioner, almost ten years ago.  It is not and has not been the 
          Division's practice.  In this regard, the Commissioner notes that 
          an inspection report is the work product of a DHCR staff member who 
          conducts an on-site inspection to determine questions of fact which 
          arise after joinder of issue in a proceeding alleging decreased 
          services.  The inspector's work product is an impartial report or 
          finding, and is not a pleading or a probative submission by a party 
          to a proceeding which if not served for response would be a fatal 
          defect in denying due process.





          Moreover, the owner had approximately twenty-six (26) months from 
          service of the tenant's complaint until the issuance of the 






          CE210285RO

          Administrator's order to investigate the tenant's complaint and to 
          make necessary repairs in a workmanlike manner, but the owner 
          failed to do so.

          Additionally, the Commissioner has considered and rejects the 
          owner's argument that greater weight should be given to the 
          Compliance Bureau letter, dated November 19, 1987, which evinced
          an intent to close the case at bar.

          The Commissioner finds that the Compliance Bureau letter was 
          predicated on a prior unsubstantiated telephone conversation 
          between the Compliance Bureau and the tenant and whatever the 
          conclusions arrived at as a result of that conversation, the 
          inspection results have greater weight and probity.  The inspection 
          report showed clearly that the owner failed to fully restore all 
          services.

          Accordingly, the owner was not denied due process and the 
          Administrator's order based on the inspection was correct.

          The Division's records indicate that the owner filed another rent 
          restoration application which was granted.  (CD210040OR).

          THEREFORE, in accordance with 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