STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.:
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                    SAMUEL HITTER,                     DOCKET NO.:

                                                       SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                       204 West 88th St.
                                   PETITIONER          Apt. 2-E, N.Y., NY


          The above-named owner filed a timely Petition for Administrative 
          Review (PAR) of an order issued on September 26, 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 March 30, 1989, by filing 
          a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain 
          services in the subject apartment.

          On May 11, 1989, an inspection of the subject apartment was con- 
          ducted by a Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) staff 
          member who confirmed the existence of defective conditions.  

          However, an answer received from the owner stated in substance that 
          some repairs had been made but that access was being withheld by 
          the tenant with respect to certain other, work.

          Therefore, a No Access inspection notice was sent to the tenant and 
          the owner, advising them of a July 5, 1989 inspection date when the 
          tenant should be ready to provide access to the owner's workers and 
          the owner's workers should be ready to perform the repairs at that 


          Thereafter, a No Access inspection was conducted on July 5, 1989, 
          by a DHCR staff member who again confirmed the existence of various 
          defective conditions.  The inspector also noted that no one repre- 
          senting the owner was present at the time of the inspection.

          Subsequent to this inspection the owner submitted a letter 
          asserting that the No Access inspection notice was mailed to them 
          when they were out of town and that no one notified their agent 
          about the inspection.  The letter again asserted that access con- 
          tinued to be a problem.

          Therefore, a second No Access inspection notice was sent to the 
          tenant and owner, advising them of an August 31, 1989 inspection 
          date.  Once again the owner was advised that his workers should be 
          ready to perform the repairs at that time.

          A second No Access inspection was then conducted on August 31, 
          1989, by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of various 
          defective conditions.  The inspector also noted that the tenant was 
          present but that there was no one from the owner's office present 
          at the inspection.

          By an order dated September 26, 1989, the Administrator directed 
          the restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.

          In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the condi- 
          tions specified in the Administrator's order were the result of the 
          tenant's own unauthorized work which the owner then had to rectify 

          DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant, who responded by 
          denying the owner's assertions.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that the petition should be denied.  

          Pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations, 
          the Administrator may impose a rent reduction when there has been 
          a reduction in services.  The owner's petition does not establish 
          any basis to modify or revoke the Administrator's determination 
          based on the various DHCR inspections which confirmed the existence 
          of defective conditions, warranting a rent reduction.


          The Commissioner notes that the owner's contention that the speci- 
          fied deficiencies resulted from work performed by the tenant was 
          raised for the first time in this petition and is therefore beyond 
          the scope of review, which is limited to those facts and issues 
          that were before the Administrator.

          Division records reveal that a rent restoration application filed 
          by the owner was denied on May 24, 1990, under Docket No. 
          DJ420161OR.  A second rent restoration application filed by the 
          owner was also denied on April 18, 1994, under Docket No. 
          GC410145OR. The owner is advised to file another such application 
          if the facts so warrant. 

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction 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   
                                                       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