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


          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: DB110171R0 

          Tiffox Realty Corp.,                    RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: CG110033OR     

                          PETITIONER              PREMISES:  Apt. 3G
                                                             11-25 46th Rd.
                                                             Queens, NY


          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 
          unworkmanlike manner.


          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.


                                                  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