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.: CC210414RT
EULYN DE MATAS RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 16, 1988 the above named petitioner-tenant filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued February 17, 1988 concerning the housing
accommodations known as Apt. 6C, 10 Midwood Street, Brooklyn, NY,
wherein the Administrator granted the owner's rent restoration
application based on a finding that the tenant failed to keep two
appointments with the Division's inspector.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence of record and has
carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues raised on
The record indicates that on August 6, 1987, the owner filed a rent
restoration application seeking restoration of rent that had been
reduced in an order issued under Docket Number K002540S because of
the owner's failure to repair loose fitting moldings around the
apartment entrance door, loose windows throughout the apartment,
inaccessible garbage area, and an inoperative stove pilot light.
The owner stated in the application that all repairs had been
completed but the tenant has refused to sign work orders.
In answer to the application, the tenant stated that the stove
pilot light still goes out causing the apartment to fill with gas,
that the windows are worse than before, that no repairs were done
to the entrance door moldings, and that the refrigerator is
An inspector from DHCR attempted to visit the apartment on two
occasions, December 22, 1987 and January 5, 1988, but the tenant
failed to keep the two appointments.
Based on the inspector's failure to gain access, the owner's
application was granted and the rent was ordered restored,
effective November 1, 1987.
In the petition for administrative review, the tenant claims that
she called the inspector and asked that the appointment be
rescheduled for after January 15, 1988 and was told that this would
be OK but then the inspector came anyway. The tenant states that
repairs have not been completed and that there are several other
conditions that the owner refuses to address.
In answer to the petition, the owner states that the windows were
repaired and that the other conditions mentioned by the tenant for
the first time in the petition will be addressed as soon as
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
An owner is entitled to a rent restoration once it is established
that all necessary repairs have been completed or that the tenant
has prevented the work from being done. In the instant case, the
Division's inspector was unable to gain access to the subject
apartment to resolve the conflicting allegations of the parties.
The inspector reported that two appointments were made by mail to
inspect the apartment and the tenant failed to keep both
appointments.There is no evidence to substantiate the tenant's
allegation that arrangements were made to postpone the inspection.
In such circumstances, the owner is entitled to restoration of rent
as the Administrator ordered.
The rent restoration was without prejudice to the tenant's right to
file a new complaint if the owner had not made necessary repairs or
if there were additional conditions requiring repair that were not
part of the earlier rent reduction proceeding. The Division's
records indicate that the tenant did not file a subsequent
complaint but may still do so if the facts so warrant.
Therefore in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED that this petition be and the same hereby is denied and the
Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA