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.: DL110057RO
RICHARD ALBERT RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 1, 1989 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued November 20, 1989. 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 June 6, 1989 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
August 11, 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 November 8, 1989 and
revealed that the hallway and second bedroom floors are not level,
that the freezer door hinge is broken and that the freezer door
falls off when trying to open it. The inspector also reported that
the living room window had been repaired.
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 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 arrangements if
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
November 20, 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 February 8, 1990.
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 owners of
inspections scheduled in rent restoration proceedings. The owner
has not provided any 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