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.: DF110222RO
RICHARD ALBERT RENT
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
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
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
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
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
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA