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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: CK110178RO
          KINGSWOOD MANAGEMENT CORP.              RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: CD110133OR

               On November 9, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued on October 4, 1988. The order concerned the 
          housing accommodations known as Apt. 2M located at 144-20 78th 
          Road, Flushing, N.Y.  The Administrator denied the owner's rent 
          restoration application.  

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 

               The owner commenced this proceeding on April 19, 1988 by 
          filing a rent restoration application wherein it alleged that the 
          tenant was refusing to allow access to the apartment so that the 
          owner could make the repairs required by the Administrator's order 
          in Docket No. BB110474S.  The Commissioner notes that the rent was 
          ordered reduced based on findings of frayed and broken apartment 
          door, defective windows and window sills and cracked living room 
          and dining room walls and ceilings.

               The tenant was served with a copy of the application and 
          afforded an opportunity to respond. The tenant filed a response on 
          June 9, 1988 and stated, in sum, that she had not denied access to 
          the owner and that the owner had not made any of the required 
               The Administrator determined that it was necessary to order a 
          "no access" inspection of the subject apartment.  A notice was sent 
          to both the owner and tenant, on September 7, 1988, informing them 
          that the inspection would be conducted on September 15, 1988 and 
          that both were required to be present.  The inspection was 
          conducted on September 15, 1988.  The tenant was present but the 
          owner did not appear.  The inspector reported that the cracked 


          walls and ceilings in the living room and dining room were repaired 
          in an unworkmanlike manner but that all other services had been 
               The Administrator issued the order being appealed on October 
          4, 1988 and denied the application based on the report of the 

               On appeal the owner, as represented by counsel, states that 
          it was denied due process in that the notice of the "no access" 
          inspection was not received by it until after the scheduled date 
          for the inspection.  The owner attaches proof of the fact that the 
          notice was received late as well as a letter it wrote to the 
          inspector apprising him of the fact.  The owner argues that, since 
          it was not afforded the opportunity to be present and make repairs, 
          that the order being appealed should be revoked.  The petition was 
          served on the tenant on December 22, 1988.

               The tenant filed a response on December 28, 1988 and stated, 
          in sum, that the allegations in the petition were not correct and 
          that the order being appealed should be affirmed.
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The Commissioner notes that the notice dated September 7, 1988 
          was properly addressed to the owner and not returned to the DHCR by 
          the post office.  A letter or notice that is properly addressed and 
          not returned is presumed to have been duly delivered to the 
          intended recipient by the post office in the normal course of 
          business.  The date stamp contained on the back of the notice in 
          question was put there by the petitioner and not the DHCR.  The 
          stamp is not dispositive of the issue of when the notice was 
          actually received by the petitioner.  The order being appealed is 
          affirmed.  The Commissioner notes that the owner reapplied for rent 
          restoration and the application was granted effective August 1, 
          1989 (see Docket No. DF110141OR).  

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it 

               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


                                             LULA M. ANDERSON  
                                             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