DHCR Decisions                                          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.: DB110171R0                                                                                Tiffox Realty Corp.,                    RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S                                                  DOCKET NO.: CG110033OR                                                                                    PETITIONER              PREMISES:  Apt. 3G                                                             11-25 46th Rd.                                                             Queens, NY          -----------------------------------X                                       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.          DB110171RO          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          unworkmanlike manner.          DB110171RO          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,          it is          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and          that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby, is affirmed.          ISSUED:                                                                                                                              JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA                                                  Deputy Commissioner