Docket Number: FE 110063-RO
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.: FE 110063-RO
KREISEL CO. INC., DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: DK 110721-S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 6, 1991, the above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued on April 4, 1991,
concerning t e housing accommodations relating to the above-
described docket number.
This administrative appeal is being determined pursuant to the
provisions of 2520.6(r) and 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issue raised by the administrative appeal.
On November 28, 1989, the tenant commenced this proceeding by
filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
certain services in the subject apartment.
In its answer filed on March 12, 1990, the owner asserted that on
February 12, 1990, repairs were made in accordance with the tenant's
Thereafter on March 12, 1991, an inspection of the subject apartment
was conducted by a D.H.C.R. inspector, who confirmed the existence
of defective conditions.
The Rent Administrator directed on April 4, 1991 restoration of
these services and further ordered a reduction of the stabilization
In its petition for administrative review, the owner states, in
substance, that the tenant failed to provide access; that a previous
order under Docket No. EK 110037-S issued on March 7, 1991
contradicts this order now appealed from; and that the tenant's
complaint arises merely from routine building maintenance.
In reply to the owner's petition filed on May 24, 1991, the tenant
denied refusing access. The tenant claimed that the owner did not
allow him "reasonable time to prepare for (repairs)" and that the
owner was not "willing to properly fix...the problem" and "correct
the situation to the way it was" before the disrepair. The tenant
also claimed that the order cited by the owner is an earlier order
based on a February 21, 1991 inspection, which was not as complete
Docket Number: FE 110063-RO
as the March 12, 1991 inspection of this order appealed from.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
As to the allegation that tenant refused access, the owner submitted
no evidence to substantiate this contention pursuant to Policy
Statement 90-5 "Arranging Repairs/No Access Inspection" either while
the proceeding was pending before the Administrator or by attachment
to this petition.
As to the allegation that a previous order had resolved these
defective conditions, the Commissioner notes that Docket No. EK
110037-S is based on an earlier and less complete inspection than
the March 12, 1991 inspection of this order appealed from. The more
recent inspection checked not only the plumbing problem of the
subject apartment but the causes of this problem, particularly the
plumbing system of the adjacent apartments. In addition, the
owner's cited docket number arises from a different tenant's
complaint and not the order appealed from.
Despite the owner's assertion that the tenant's complaint arises
merely from "routine building maintenance," inspection disclosed
defective conditions. The owner provided no proof to rebut the
March 12, 1991 inspection findings.
Accordingly, based on a preponderance of the evidence the owner has
offered insufficient reason to disturb the Administrator's order,
and it should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby