CE410073RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                                  92-31 UNION HALL
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433





          ------------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: CE410073RO

                    M. J. Raynes Inc.,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: AF410111OR
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On May 27, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on April 22, 
          1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 44 West 62nd Street, Apt. 26-E, New York, 
          N.Y., wherein  the Administrator determined that the owner's 
          application for rent restoration should be denied based upon the 
          owner's failure to keep an appointment with the DHCR inspector.  

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          order issued by the administrative appeal.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly denied 
          the owner's application for rent restoration.

          On April 2, 1987, the owner refiled a completed application for 
          rent restoration alleging that it has been unable to restore the 
          services which were the subject of the rent reduction order, dated 
          January 21, 1986, under Docket Nos. L000419 and LS003044S because 
          the tenants have been uncooperative.

          In answer to the application, the tenants denied that they have 
          been uncooperative but stated that they wanted the apartment 
          painted in the same manner as on two previous occasions and that 
          they wanted the wooden floors replaced before the apartment is 
          painted.



          A physical inspection was conducted on November 13, 1987.  The 
          inspector reported that not all repairs had been completed.  Among 












          CE410073RO

          other things, the inspector noted that there were loose wooden 
          floor tiles in the dining room and that, according to the tenants, 
          the apartment had not been painted since 1981.

          Because of the owner's allegations regarding no access, a Notice of 
          Inspection (for access) was sent to the owner's attorney and tenant 
          for an inspection scheduled for January 27, 1988.  The inspector 
          reported that the tenants were present but the owner or his 
          representative were not.  The tenants showed the inspector a letter 
          they had received from the owner stating that repairs would begin 
          on February 2, 1988.

          On March 22, 1988, the tenants were asked by the Administrator if 
          the apartment had been painted.  They responded that the apartment 
          has not been painted since 1981.

          The Rent Administrator issued the order appealed herein denying the 
          owner's application because the owner failed to keep the 
          appointment with the DHCR inspector.
             
          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          the tenant has consistently refused to provide reasonable access to 
          the subject apartment and that proper inspection notice was not 
          extended to the owner or its representatives.

          The petition was served on the tenants on July 7, 1988, and on July 
          26, 1988, the tenants filed an answer to the petition stating that 
          they were not denying reasonable access to the owner, but that 
          there was a difference of opinion between the parties as to exactly 
          what service deficiencies were to be corrected by the owner.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          The record shows that the DHCR mailed a properly addressed, (no 
          access) Notice of Inspection, dated January 19, 1988, to the tenant 
          and the owner's attorney advising the parties to be present at an 
          inspection of the subject apartment on January 27, 1988.  The 
          Notice of Inspection contained the following statement:

               Failure of the owner and/or his repair person(s) to be 
               present and ready to attend to repairs and/or restore 
               services, or failure of the tenant to keep this 
               appointment will result in a determination based solely  
               on the evidence presently in the record.


          At the time of the inspection, the tenants were present but neither 
          the owner nor its representative appeared.

          The Commissioner has considered the petitioner's claim that the 






          CE410073RO

          DHCR inspection notice was inadequate and finds this argument to be 
          without basis.  It is fundamental that letters or notices properly 
          addressed and mailed post-paid are presumed to have reached their 
          destination and to have been delivered in due course.

          The Commissioner notes that the petitioner argued on appeal 
          (paragraph 7) that no legal requirement existed for the owner or 
          its representatives to be present at the inspection, but this 
          reasoning is fallacious given the fact that the scheduled 
          inspection was a no-access inspection and that the owner has 
          consistently raised the no-access issue as a basis for its failure 
          to make all repairs.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly 
          based his determination on the entire record, and that the 
          Administrator properly denied the owner's rent restoration 
          application upon determining that the owner failed to keep the 
          appointment with the DHCR inspector.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          that the Administrator's order be, and same hereby is, affirmed.

                   


          ISSUED:






                                                                     
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             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