CJ120149RT
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
----------------------------------x
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
CJ120149RT
ALBERT A. CORIOU,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
----------------------------------x BJ120861S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 4, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
September 28, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodation known as 94-26 34th Road, Apartment E-7,
Jackson Heights, New York, wherein the Administrator denied the
tenant's application for a rent reduction for reduction in services
on the basis that the tenant failed to provide access to the
apartment for the purpose of inspection.
The Commissioner has reviewed all 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 of a complaint by the
tenant alleging numerous conditions of non-maintenance of apartment
services.
The owner was served with a copy of the tenant's complaint and
advised that the tenant does not cooperate with the owner to make
repairs, and that the tenant does not answer the door bell or
accept certified mail requesting access for repairs. Included with
the owner's answer were copies of various certified mailings from
the owner to the tenant which had been returned unclaimed, and
statements of owner's agents who were denied access.
On May 2, 1988, the Division notified the tenant of the owner's
claim of lack of access and asked him to set a mutually agreed upon
date for access. By letter dated May 5, 1988, the tenant responded
that the owner or his agents have been granted access on five
CJ120149RT
occasions most recently on May 3, 1988, but made little effort to
cure the conditions. The tenant went on to complain about the
superintendent, overcrowding and stereophonic noise in the
apartment above, and lack of extermination.
On June 29, 1988, the tenant was notified of an inspection of his
apartment to take place on July 20, 1988. On July 5, 1988, the
tenant notified the Division that he would not be available until
August 8, 1988. The inspector was unable to accommodate the
request but suggested July 22, as an alternative date. This was
not acceptable to the tenant who requested that the inspector not
come on either date.
On August 22, 1988, the tenant was again notified of an inspection
to take place on August 30, 1988, at which time repairs would take
place. The notice stated that a failure by the tenant to keep this
appointment will result in a determination based solely on the
evidence presently of record. On the day of inspection, there was
no answer at the apartment resulting in the order denying the
tenant's complaint.
In the PAR, the tenant states that on July 5, 1988, he requested of
the inspector an alternate date of August 4, 1988, but was informed
by the inspector that the proceeding could not be extended beyond
July 22. The tenant further states that he was not available
between August 22 and August 30, 1988.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
Two notices were sent from this Division to arrange for an
inspection of this tenant's apartment. Given the amount of lead
time attending the first notice of inspection which was dated June
29, 1988, and without further ostensible reason on the part of the
tenant, it is difficult to understand that a mutually convenient
date could not be arrived at during the month of July. The
Division sought to arrange a "no-access" inspection at the end of
August on notice to both tenant and owner. The tenant does not
allege that he did not receive the notice but, again, states his
unavailability between the date of the notice and the date of
inspection. Notwithstanding that the tenant states he was advised
that the inspection could not take place after July 22 because the
proceeding could not be protracted, and again, without further
explanation on the part of the tenant, the Commissioner finds,
given the record in this case, that ample opportunity was given to
this tenant to make his apartment available for inspection and the
Administrator's order was correct as issued.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, 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,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
