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.: CK210164RT
ISRAEL COHEN, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: CC210213OR
PETITIONER PREMISES: Apt. 3A
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on November 17, 1988 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.
This proceeding was commenced on March 25, 1988 by the owner filing
an application to restore rent based on the restoration of services.
The owner also stated that the tenant had "unreasonably refused to
permit the owner to insure services."
On May 9, 1988, a copy of the owner's application was served on the
In an answer filed on May 18, 1988, the tenant asserted that he was
"willing to provide access."
The owner submitted to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR) copies of letters requesting access, sent to the tenant by
regular mail and certified mail, to show that the tenant unreason-
ably refused access.
Thereafter, DHCR informed the tenant of scheduled inspections to
take place August 16 and 23, 1988, by notices dated August 9 and 16,
1988. The tenant did not provide access to the DHCR staff
By order dated November 17, 1988, the Administrator determined that
the tenant failed to provide access and restored the rent effective
June 1, 1988.
In the petition for administrative review, the tenant contends that
he was not notified of inspections scheduled on August 16 and 23,
In answer, the owner asserts in substance that the tenant offered no
evidence to the contrary; that the rent restoration should be
effective May 1, 1988, i.e. 30 days after the March 25, 1988 filing
of the owner's application.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
The record clearly shows that the owner submitted to DHCR copies of
letters requesting access, sent to the tenant by regular mail and
certified mail, to show that the tenant unreasonably refused access.
The record further shows that DHCR informed the tenant of scheduled
inspections on August 16 and 23, 1988; two notices dated August 9
and 16, 1988 were correctly addressed and mailed to the tenant; and
the tenant did not respond to these notices.
Based on the entire evidence in record, the Administrator properly
determined that the tenant failed to provide access during scheduled
inspections, and that the owner's application should be granted,
restoring the rent.
The owner's assertion in response to the petition that the rent
restoration should be effective 30 days after the filing of the
application is incorrect. Section 2522.2 states in relevant part
that the effective date of adjusting the legal regulated rent shall
be the first rent payment occurring 30 days after the filing of the
application, unless otherwise set forth in the order. Pursuant to
DHCR's policy and precedent, the Administrator's order is correct in
setting forth June 1, 1988 as the effective date, which is the first
of the month following service on the tenant of the owner's
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