STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: CB420001RT
          CARL GEORGE                             RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: BE420016RP

               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 
          inspection appointments.

               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  
                                             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