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.: CB420001RT
CARL GEORGE RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 5, 1988 the above named petitioner-tenant timely
refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of
the Rent Administrator issued December 4, 1987. The order concerned
the housing accommodations known as Apt. 3 located at 245 E. Second
Street, New York, N.Y. The Administrator dismissed the tenant's
complaint based on the failure of the tenant to keep scheduled
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The tenant originally commenced this proceeding on August 21,
1985 by filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services
wherein he alleged, in sum, that the owner was not maintaining
certain required apartment services. The proceeding was assigned
Docket No. LC004252S. The owner was served with a copy of the
complaint and afforded an opportunity to respond.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was scheduled for September 12, 1986.
The tenant was so notified but failed to be present at the time of
inspection. The inspection was rescheduled for September 19, 1986
and the tenant again failed to be present despite notice thereof.
Finally, the inspection was rescheduled for October 14, 1986 and
the tenant again failed to be present after notice.
The Administrator issued an order on December 10, 1986 wherein
the complaint was dismissed based on the tenant's failure to keep
the appointments set forth above.
The tenant requested reconsideration of the Administrator's
order. On May 12, 1987 the Administrator reopened the proceeding.
The record reveals that the Administrator based this decision on
the tenant's assertion that his mailbox was defective and that,
therefore, he did not get notice of the three inspections described
above. The Administrator stated that the tenant was to cooperate
in making the apartment available for a physical inspection and for
the owner to make repairs. The proceeding was assigned Docket No.
A physical inspection of the subject apartment was scheduled
to be conducted on October 19, 1987. The inspector reported that
access to the apartment could not be obtained. The inspection was
rescheduled for November 2, 1987 with the inspector again reporting
that access could not be obtained. In both instances, the tenant
was notified of the impending inspections.
The Administrator issued the order being appealed on
December 4, 1987 and terminated this proceeding based on the
tenant's failure to keep the scheduled inspection appointments.
On appeal the tenant states that he missed the appointment on
October 19, 1987 because of work and that he was present on
November 2, 1987 but that the building does not contain a bell and
buzzer system and he apparently missed the inspector. The petition
was served on the owner on March 23, 1988.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The tenant has been afforded numerous opportunities to be
present to give access to the inspector. The tenant has failed to
provide any instructions to the DHCR as to how and when access to
the apartment can be obtained. The Commissioner finds that the
tenant has failed to cooperate with the agency, as required in the
Administrator's order reopening this proceeding. Accordingly, the
Administrator correctly terminated this proceeding. The order
being appealed is affirmed.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
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.
LULA M. ANDERSON