CG410062RT
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.: CG410062RT
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BJ410158OR
Nina Solin,
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 6, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on June 2,
1988 (and amended June 17, 1988), by the Rent Administrator,
concerning the housing accommodation known as 15 West 72nd Street,
New York, N.Y. Apt. 11-U, wherein the Administrator determined that
the owner's application for a restoration of rent based upon a
restoration of services should be granted, effective December 1,
1987. The Rent Administrator's order noted that the tenant failed
to keep two scheduled appointments with the DHCR inspector and the
Rent Administrator restored the rent based upon the owner's
correction of water seepage and the crack in the kitchen ceiling.
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
restored the rent of the subject apartment.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant contended, among other
things, that although she received two inspection notices from the
DHCR, one notice did not go through the post office and had no
postal stamp; that both notices were received on the same day after
the scheduled inspection, and further that the owner forced her to
admit the owner's employees into the subject apartment for the
purpose of making repairs.
The petition was served on the owner on August 17, 1988.
CG410062RT
The owner answered the petition alleging that the Rent
Administrator properly granted the owner's rent restoration
application and that the tenant has a long history of denying
repair access to the owner's employees and to DHCR inspectors.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The Housing and Maintenance Code provides,
S D26-10.07 Owner's right of access---No tenant shall refuse
to permit the owner or his agent or employee, to enter his
dwelling unit or other space under his control to make repairs
or improvements required by this Code or other law or to
inspect such apartment or other space to determine compliance
with this code or any other provision of law, if the right of
entry is exercised at a reasonable time and in reasonable
manner. The department may by regulation restrict the time
and manner of such inspections.
The record shows that the DHCR mailed two separate inspection
notices, properly addressed, to the tenant on April 5, 1988 and
April 12, 1988, but that the tenant failed to keep either
appointment.
The Commissioner notes that the DHCR inspection staff made two
attempts to gain access to this apartment, without success and that
operating procedures mandate a maximum of two inspectorial visits.
The record is also replete with evidence that the tenant has
previously frustrated the owner's efforts to make repairs in the
subject apartment. The owner submitted with the restoration
application a copy of a letter, dated October 12, 1987, sent to the
tenant by certified mail, which described the owner's inability to
gain access to the subject apartment to make repairs, and directed
the tenant to contact the owner for an appointment for repairs.
The Commissioner has considered the petitioner's claim that
the DHCR inspection notices were inadequate and finds this argument
to be without basis. It is fundamental that letters or notices
properly addressed and mailed post-paid are presumed to have
reached their destination and to have been delivered in due course.
In the instant proceeding the inspection notices were mailed
to the tenant on April 5, 1988, and April 12, 1988, well before the
inspections scheduled for April 11 and 19, 1988, and the
petitioner's claim that they both arrived after April 19, 1988 is
not credible.
The Commissioner also notes that the tenant's petition stated
that "the owner forced me to allow them to make repairs." It is
CG410062RT
apparent, therefore, that after several attempts, the owner gained
access to the subject apartment and completed the repair-work
sometime after the appealed order was issued.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator
properly based his determination on the entire record, and that the
Administrator properly restored the rent upon determining that the
tenant had denied access to the DHCR inspector.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that Administrator's order be, and same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
___________________
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|
