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

          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: CK420078RO

                    Normandy Associates c/o
                    Orsid Realty Corp.,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: BK420737S


          On November 29, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          October 25, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 140 Riverside Drive, Apt. 1-K, New York, 
          N.Y., wherein the Administrator determined that a reduction in rent 
          was warranted based upon a reduction in services.

          The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of services.  

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

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced 
          the rent of the subject apartment.

          On November 23, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that 
          the owner failed to maintain certain services in the subject 

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint, on January 19, 1988, 
          alleging that it has been in court with the tenant on a continuing 
          basis and that a decision issued in Civil Court on January 11, 1988 
          established that the tenant failed to provide apartment access to 
          its workers to make necessary repairs.


          A DHCR inspection conducted on August 16, 1988, revealed that:

          1.   Living room ceiling and walls are peeling paint, blistered and 
               water stained.  Kitchen wall is peeling paint and plaster in 
               some areas.  Bedroom walls and ceiling are blistered and 
               peeling paint and plaster.

          2.   There are mice droppings in the kitchen as well as roaches.

          3.   Refrigerator bulb is out.  The freezer box is stuffed with 
               newspaper around the outer surface.  Freezer door is broken.

          4.   Flushometer pressure is too powerful and as a result water 
               comes out of the toilet bowl as it flushes.

          5.   Kitchen sink faucet aerator sprays water through the sides.

          6.   Bathroom located in the hallway has a consistent leak in 
               bathroom tub faucet (heavy leak).

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          the tenant denied its workers access to the apartment to do 
          necessary repair work and that a Civil Court decision issued under 
          Index No. L & T 60584/87, supported this conclusion.

          The petition was served on the tenant on December 29, 1988.

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

          The Housing and Maintenance Code provides:

          S D26-10.07 Owner's right of access---No tenant shall refuse to 
          permit the owner or his agent or employee, to enter his dwelling 
          unit or other space under his control to make repairs or 
          improvements required by this code or other law or to inspect such 
          apartment or other space to determine compliance with this code or 
          any other provision of law, if the right of entry is exercised at 
          a reasonable time and in reasonable manner.  The department may by 
          regulation restrict the time and manner of such inspections.

          In the instant proceeding, the owner alleged that the tenant denied 
          its workers access to the subject apartment and that it, therefore, 
          could not make necessary repairs.

          However, a review of the file shows that the owner failed to 
          establish a denial of access with sufficient evidence.

          Accordingly, the Administrator properly relied on the entire 
          evidence in the record, including the results of the August 16, 


          1988 inspection which confirmed the existence of defective 
          conditions warranting a rent reduction.

          The Commissioner has considered but rejects the petitioner's 
          argument that the access issue was conclusively decided by the 
          decision rendered in the Civil Court under Index No. L & T 
          60584/87.  The decision in that action merely noted that the 
          petitioner's unrebutted testimony indicated that the respondent 
          (tenant) did not cooperate in giving access to the owner.

          This, in and of itself, did not conclusively decide the access 

          The Commissioner notes that the owner's rent restoration 
          applications were respectively granted on December 8, 1989, under 
          Docket No. DE420162OR and August 2, 1990, under Docket No. 

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is

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