DF110222RO

                                  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.: DF110222RO
                                                  
          RICHARD ALBERT                          RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: CI110135OR
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On June 6, 1989 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued May 17, 1988. The order concerned housing 
          accommodations known as Apt 3R located at 93-47 222nd Street, 
          Queens Village, 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 
          appeal.

               The owner commenced this proceeding on December 27, 1988 by 
          filing a rent restoration application wherein he alleged that the 
          rent should be restored back to the date of the rent reduction 
          because the rent was reduced for items not mentioned in the 
          complaint and because a court ordered inspection resulted in an 
          order which has been complied with. The Commissioner notes that the 
          rent had been reduced based on findings that the owner was not 
          maintaining the following services: defective hallway and second 
          bedroom floor, defective kitchen cabinet door, freezer door off 
          hinge, rotted and water stained living room window frame, water 
          stained windows throughout, and peeling paint and plaster.

               The tenant was served with a copy of the application and 
          afforded an opportunity to respond. The tenant filed a response on 
          January 21, 1989 and stated that she opposed the application on the 
          ground that the owner had not restored services.
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on March 30, 1989 and 
          revealed that the hallway and second bedroom floors are not level, 
          that the freezer door hinge is broken and that the living room left 












          DF110222RO

          window cannot open or close properly.  All other services were 
          found to have been maintained.

               The results of the inspection were sent to the owner on April 
          4, 1989 with instructions to submit evidence in the form of 
          tenant's approved signatures or contractors' receipts within 20 
          days substantiating the completion of repairs.  In response, the 
          owner asserted that the inspection is questionable because the 
          owner was not present, that the floors sag because the building is 
          60 years old and has settled, that the refrigerator has to be 
          removed to be repaired but that the tenant refused to allow this, 
          and that the living room window was repaired by a contractor who 
          guarantees his work and will make additional adjustments if 
          necessary.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on May 
          17, 1989 and denied the owner's application.

               On appeal the owner states that the above described inspection 
          is invalid because he was not notified of when the inspection would 
          take place nor was his representative present at the time of the 
          inspection.  With regard to the refrigerator, the owner argues that 
          the tenant has refused to allow the refrigerator to be removed from 
          the apartment so that it can be repaired. The petition was served 
          on the tenant on September 20, 1989.
           
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               With regard to the owner's contention that the inspection is 
          biased because the owner was not present, the Commissioner notes 
          that it is not the policy of the Division to notify owner's of 
          inspections scheduled in rent restoration proceedings.  The owner 
          has not provided details regarding the alleged inaccuracies in the 
          inspector's report. With regard to the tenant's alleged failure to 
          allow the refrigerator to be removed, the evidence of record does 
          not support this contention.  The record contains a reply, from the 
          tenant, to a request for access by the owner in which the tenant 
          stated that she would not be available on the date requested by the 
          owner, but that she would be available at a specific hour on the 
          following day for the purpose of allowing the owner to inspect the 
          conditions requiring repair.  Clearly, the tenant was willing to 
          allow the owner access to the apartment and there is no specific 
          statement regarding the refrigerator.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the order here under 
          review was correctly issued.  The order is affirmed.  The 
          Commissioner also notes that the owner has reapplied for rent 
          restoration and that the application, bearing Docket No. 
          HD110182OR, is pending before the DHCR.
               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it 
          is 






          DF110222RO


               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.

          ISSUED:



                                                                             
                                             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