STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: DB110171R0
Tiffox Realty Corp., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: CG110033OR
PETITIONER PREMISES: Apt. 3G
11-25 46th Rd.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on January 20, 1989 concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by this administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on July 1, 1988 by the owner filing an
application to restore rent based on the restoration of services and
the tenant's unreasonable refusal to permit the owner to completely
restore services. The owner submitted in relevant part a copy of a
February 10, 1987 letter from a worker who stated that he did
extensive plastering and painting in one room on February 4, 5 and
6 when the tenant asked him to stop work until further notice. The
owner submitted a copy of a certified letter from the tenant
informing the owner of leaving town on a certain date and not being
available at that time for apartment repairs. The owner submitted no
evidence of a notice requesting access for repairs, by regular mail
and certified mail with return receipt.
On August 5, 1988, DHCR transmitted a copy of the owner's
application to the tenant.
Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted on December 14, 1988 by a DHCR staff member who confirmed
the continued existence of defective conditions.
Based on the inspection, the Administrator determined that the
bathtub is peeling; the cut-off valve is broken; the small bedroom
ceiling and walls have water stains due to leaks; and the living
room wall has a large hole needing plastering and painting. On
January 20, 1989 the Administrator denied the owner's application.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner does not
dispute the inspection results and otherwise asserted that the
sources of the leak arising from contiguous apartments had been
repaired. The owner reiterates as in its answer to the complaint in
the proceeding before the Administrator that due perhaps to the
tenant's job which required leaving town, the tenant prevented the
completion of work. The owner submitted a vague copy of a letter
requesting the tenant for an appointment and a copy of a certified
mailing, with no clear date and return receipt, that was allegedly
unclaimed by the tenant.
In answer, the tenant denied refusing access, asserting that he
allowed workmen into his apartment either through his sublessee or
by leaving the keys with the building handyman; that he generally
had regular working hours and usually was at the apartment; and that
in fact the owner and his workers were in his apartment frequently,
but their work was a mess and unprofessional. The tenant explained
that the real cause of these defective conditions for years since
the inception of his lease is chronic leaking in the bathroom walls
and ceiling; that the three days' work in February 1987 was slow,
patch-up, ineffective and unworkmanlike; that the owner had never
addressed the real leak until after the issuance of the
Administrator's order; and that the repairman sent by the owner
subsequent to the issuance of the order did some of the repairs in
less than three days.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
The owner failed to establish in the proceeding below or in this
petition that the tenant refused access for the completion of
repairs. The owner submitted no evidence of a notice requesting the
tenant to provide access for scheduled repairs by regular mail and
certified mail with return receipt. Rather, the record supports the
contention that repairs were not completed and had been done in an
Based on the entire record, the order appealed from was in all
respects proper and is hereby sustained.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby, is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA