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.: CJ410265RT
DOCKET NO.: CD410071OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 31, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on October
17, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 1045 Park Avenue, Apt. 2A, New York, N.Y.,
wherein the Administrator restored the rent that had been reduced
by order issued on December 3, 1986, on the basis that the tenant
had refused access to the Division's inspector.
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 of an application to
restore rent dated March 28, 1988 which alleged that the complaints
cited in the order reducing the rent had been remedied. A copy of
the owner's application was served on the tenant who responded on
June 3, 1988 that no restoration work had been undertaken by the
owner. On September 22, 1988, a Division Staff inspector attempted
to conduct an inspection of the subject apartment. The tenant,
however, refused access for the inspection on the basis that she
had not made a complaint. The record discloses that on September
14, 1988 a notice of the inspection was mailed by this Division to
the tenant at the correct address.
Thereafter, on October 17, 1988, the Administrator issued its order
granting the owner's request on the basis that the tenant refused
access for inspection.
In the PAR, the tenant states that the damage to the floors and
carpet, which was the basis for the rent reduction, has never been
corrected, and that she did not know that an inspector was coming
because the notice of inspection was received two days after the
scheduled inspection date.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
The record reveals that in the tenant's first communication with
the Administrator after receiving the order she advised that she
had received no notice of the intended inspection. In the PAR,
however, she states that the notice arrived late. Once the notice
arrived, the tenant was aware of the purpose of the inspector's
visit, and it was the obligation of the tenant to notify the
Administrator of the insufficient notice. This is particularly
true where the tenant now claims that the owner has never rectified
the conditions in her apartment and that the floor condition is
particularly hazardous. There was sufficient time after September
22, 1988, the date of the attempted inspection, and before the
order was issued for the tenant to have notified the Administrator
that the notice of inspection was received two days after the date
that the inspector came to the apartment and spoke with the tenant.
The Commissioner, therefore, finds that the Administrator's order
was correct as issued and the tenant's petition does not establish
any basis for modifying or revoking the Administrator's order.
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