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.:
WEST BANK REALTY, DOCKET NO.:
82 West 105th St.
PETITIONER New York, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely Petition for Administrative
Review (PAR) of an order issued on October 6, 1989, concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
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 the petition.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on September 2, 1988, by
filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
certain services in the subject apartment.
In answer, the owner asserted in substance that the tenant was not
providing access. A letter from the owner to the tenant concerning
access was also submitted.
The Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) scheduled a
No Access inspection on September 28, 1989, informing the parties
beforehand that the tenant should be ready to provide access to the
owner's workers who should also be ready to perform the repairs at
On September 28, 1989, a No Access inspection of the subject
apartment was conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the
existence of defective conditions. The inspector noted that the
tenant was present at this inspection, but that the owner and his
workers were not.
By an order dated October 6, 1989, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the tenant
did not ask for a rent reduction in his original complaint.
In answer, the tenant asserted that the Agency was authorized to
issue a rent reduction even if the tenant did not specifically
request one in his complaint.
The owner responded to this, refuting the tenant's assertion. The
owner also noted in his response that the tenant was not providing
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
A careful review of the record reveals that the tenant did, in
fact, fail to request a rent reduction in his original complaint.
However, rent controlled tenants do not have to request a rent
reduction on their complaint in order to be entitled to one.
The Commissioner also deems it appropriate to further note that the
DHCR scheduled a No Access inspection on September 28, 1989,
informing the parties beforehand that the tenant should be ready to
provide access to the owner's workers who should also be ready to
perform the repairs at the time. During the No Access inspection,
a DHCR staff member confirmed the existence of various defective
conditions, and reported that the tenant was present and that the
owner and the owner's workers were absent at the time of inspec-
Accordingly, the owner's petition does not establish any basis to
modify or revoke the Administrator's determination based on the
September 28, 1989 inspection which confirmed (1) the existence of
defective conditions warranting a rent reduction, and (2) the fact
that the owner and the owner's workers were not ready to perform
repairs at the No Access inspection.
Division records indicate that the owner has filed an application
to restore the rent which was denied on March 18, 1992, under
Docket No. FH420017OR. The owner is advised to file another such
application if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Control Law and Regulations
and Operational Bulletin 84-1, 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,
LULA M. ANDERSON