STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
Gertrude and Sam Klayman,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 7, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenants filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on March 4,
1988 by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 1925 Quentin Road, Apt. 6L, Brooklyn, N.Y.,
wherein the Administrator terminated the tenants' complaint on the
basis that the tenants had failed to provide access on two
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.
This proceeding was commenced by the filing by the tenants of a
complaint of decrease in services which alleged roof leaks, seepage
in bedroom walls and ceiling and around windows with plaster
damage, and seepage in bathroom ceiling. In answer to the tenants'
complaint, the owner responded that the roof above the apartment
had been repaired and the interior work in the apartment would be
completed no later than August 8, 1987.
An inspection conducted by a DHCR staff inspector on November 9,
1987 disclosed that plaster repairs were made in the bedroom but
were not painted and although not mentioned in the tenants'
complaint, that the living room ceiling is also water stained.
Because the tenants' complaint regarding the bathroom ceiling was
not included in the inspection, the Administrator requested a
reinspection. Two attempts were made to re-inspect the apartment
on January 28, 1988 and February 8, 1988, but were unsuccessful.
In the PAR, the tenants state that they were out of town during the
time the notices of inspection were sent and that their daughter
apprised the inspector of this fact and requested an inspection
after April 3, 1988, and that the conditions in the apartment have
not been corrected, have gotten worse, and that it now rains in the
living room as well as the bedroom.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
The first inspection revealed that the complained of condition in
the tenants' bedroom had been repaired. The record reveals that
recent correspondence to the tenants from this Division regarding
the tenants' PAR was not answered and no further complaint was
filed by the tenants. While the petition states that the tenants'
daughter attempted to arrange for an inspection at a mutually
convenient time, the tenants have not submitted any proof of this
fact and the inspector's report does not bear any notation in this
Consequently, the Commissioner finds that it was proper for the
Administrator to rely on the record as established, including the
reports of the inspection, to determine the outcome in this case.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent Law and the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA