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.: CC110374R0
Tiffox Realty Corp., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BB110033S
PETITIONER PREMISES: Apt. 3G
11-25 46th Rd.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on February 5, 1988 concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.
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.
This proceeding was commenced on January 30, 1987 by a tenant filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain services
in the subject apartment.
In an answer filed on March 17, 1987, the owner denied the
allegations as set forth in the complaint and otherwise asserted
that repairs had only been done in part because the tenant was
constantly out of town and access to the apartment was not given.
The owner submitted in relevant part a copy of a February 10, 1987
letter from a worker who stated that he did extensive plastering and
painting in one room on February 4, 5 and 6 when the tenant asked
him to stop work until further notice. The owner submitted no
evidence of a notice requesting access by the tenant for scheduled
repairs after February 6, 1987, by regular mail and certified mail
with return receipt.
Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted on July 30, 1987 by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the
existence of the complained-of conditions.
Based on the inspection, the Administrator determined that the
ceiling in the bathroom leaks and has a hole (hazardous); that the
bathtub is peeling badly; that the tiles in the bathroom are broken
and missing; that the cut-off valve is broken; that there are holes
in the bathroom floor; that the ceiling and walls in the bedroom are
leaking; that the ceiling in the kitchen is discolored and peeling
paint and plaster; and that the walls and ceilings are peeling paint
and plaster in the kitchen, hallway and living room. The
Administrator directed the restoration of services and ordered a
reduction of the stabilized rent.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner does not
dispute the inspection results and otherwise asserted that the leak
in the bath ceiling had been repaired. The owner reiterates as in
its answer to the complaint in the proceeding before the
Administrator that due perhaps to the tenant's job which required
leaving town, the tenant prevented the completion of work.
In answer, the tenant denied refusing access, asserting that he
allowed workmen to his aparment either through his sublessee or by
leaving the keys to the building handyman; and that he generally had
regular working hours and usually was at the apartment. The tenant
explained that the real cause of these defective conditions for
years since the inception of his lease is chronic leaking in the
bathroom walls and ceiling; that the three days' work in February
1987 was slow, patch-up, ineffective and unworkmanlike; that the
owner had never addressed the real leak until after the issuance of
the Administrator's order; and that the professional worker sent by
the owner subsequent to the issuance of the order did the repairs in
less than three days.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
The owner failed to establish in the proceeding below or in this
petition that the tenant refused access for the completion of
repairs on February 6, 1987. The owner submitted no evidence of a
notice requesting the tenant to provide access for scheduled repairs
after February 6, 1987, by regular mail and certified mail with
return receipt. Rather, the record supports the contention that
repairs on February 4, 5, and 6 1987 may have ben done in an
Inasmuch as the owner does not dispute the inspection's findings,
which were the basis of the Administrator's determination, the order
appealed from was in all respects proper and is hereby sustained.
The owner's rent restoration application (CG110033OR) was denied on
January 20, 1989.
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted
by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this
Order and Opinion.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
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