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 NOS.: DE110459RT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 10, 1989 the above named petitioner-tenant filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued on May 3, 1989 concerning the housing
accommodations known as Apt. 3L, at 39-70 62nd Street, Woodside, NY
wherein the Administrator granted the owner's rent restoration
application based on the tenant's failure to keep scheduled
appointments with the inspector.
The Commissioner has carefully reviewed all the evidence of record
and has carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues
raised on appeal.
The owner filed an application seeking restoration of rent that had
been reduced in an order issued on April 1, 1986 under Docket No.
AB110114S. The owner stated in the application that all services
had been restored.
In answer to the application, the tenant stated that the owner had
not made the necessary repairs.
On April 17, 1989, DHCR's inspector sent the tenant a notice
scheduling an inspection of the apartment on April 24, 1989. The
inspector was unable to gain access on that date and left a notice
under the tenant's door advising that the inspection should take
place the following day. The inspector reported that he was unable
to gain access that day as well.
Based on this report, the Rent Administrator granted the owner's
rent restoration application.
In the petition for administrative review, the tenant asserts that
he was unable to provide access on April 24, 1989 because he did
not receive the Notice of Inspection until April 25, 1989. He
contends that the repairs have not been and that he is willing to
provide access to the inspector if given advance notice.
In answer to the petition, the owner asserts that extermination
service is provided on a regular basis and that the ceilings have
been plastered and repaired throughout.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
An owner is entitled to restoration of rent that was ordered
reduced by DHCR because of a finding of failure to maintain
services once it is established that all required services cited in
the rent reduction order have been restored. The determination as
to whether services have been restored is generally made on the
basis of a physical inspection of the premises by a DHCR employee.
In the instant case, notice to the tenant was sent by the inspector
a full week before the inspection was scheduled which should have
been sufficient time for the notice to reach the tenant. However,
even if the mailed notice did not get to the tenant in time,
another notice was placed under the tenant's door which the tenant
does not deny receiving and which afforded the tenant sufficient
opportunity made arrangements for access the following day.
A tenant cannot deprive the owner of rent restoration by not
allowing the Division's inspector to investigate whether required
services have been restored. The Rent Administrator properly
granted the owner's application after the inspector made two
unsuccessful attempts to visit the apartment.
THEREFORE in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED that these petitions be and the same hereby are denied and
the Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA