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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: CH210153RO
          DEARBORN ASSOCIATES                     RENT
          C/O PARKOFF MGMT.                       ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: CA210031OR

          On August 26, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued July 27, 1988 concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as Apt. 4M, 345 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn, 
          NY, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's rent restoration 
          application based on a physical inspection which disclosed that 
          conditions had not been corrected.
          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence of record and has 
          carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues raised on 

          A review of the record reveals that on January 26, 1988, the owner 
          filed a rent restoration application in which it was alleged that 
          the tenant had unreasonably refused to permit the owner to restore 
          services which was the basis for a rent reduction order issued on 
          October 7, 1987 under Docket No. BA210067S.  The owner enclosed 
          affidavits by a superintendent and a contractor stating that they 
          were unable to gain access. 

          The application was served on the tenant on February 18, 1988.  In 
          response, the tenant stated that she is willing to take time off 
          from her job for the owner's workers to do repairs if she is given 
          reasonable notice.  She said she did refuse access to one of the 
          owner's "contractors" because this person had come to her apartment 
          once before and demanded money for supplies but did not return 
          after she gave him $40.00.  The tenant added that on February 19, 
          1988, the superintendent came with another man who did not speak 
          English, the super left to purchase sheetrock while the other man


          scraped the walls and ceilings, the super returned several hours 
          later without any equipment and both men left without having 
          accomplished anything.  With regard to the infestation problem, the 
          tenant stated that the problem is the result of holes which need to 
          be closed to prevent mice from entering and the need for 
          extermination services in the incinerator rooms.   

          A physical inspection by DHCR revealed that there was evidence of 
          mice droppings and the bathroom floor was unlevel and had missing 

          Based on this inspection, the owner's application was denied.

          In the petition for administrative review, the owner asserts that 
          the infestation problem was not mentioned by the tenant in the 
          complaint and that the repairs to the bathroom floor tiles were 
          finally made after numerous attempts to gain access.

          In answer to the petition, the tenant again asserts that the mice 
          infestation problem will not be corrected until the holes in the 
          baseboards are closed and the incinerator rooms are exterminated, 
          and that the repairs to the bathroom floor were done only after the 
          order appealed herein was issued.

          After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

          Restoration of rent is warranted only after it is established that 
          the owner has made complete and workmanlike repairs to the 
          conditions for which the rent was reduced or the owner proves that 
          the tenant has refused to permit access to permit repairs.

          The order appealed herein was properly based on a physical 
          inspection which revealed that the necessary repairs had not been 
          completed.  The owner did not establish lack of access by means of 
          convincing evidence such as letters sent by regular and certified 
          mail scheduling appointment dates for repairs.   The tenant 
          disputes that she denied access or gives reasonable explanations 
          for her failure to admit disreputable workers to her apartment.

          The owner's allegation that the infestation problem was not 
          mentioned in the complaint can only be considered in a petition for 
          administrative review of the rent reduction order which the owner 
          did not file.

          The Division's records reveal that a subsequent rent restoration 
          application was granted (Docket No. CH210234OR).


          Therefore in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is 

          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
                                             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