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    
                                                 DOCKET NO.:                 
                     DEVORAH BOCK,                                

                              PETITIONER      : 


               On January 2, 1991, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on December 
          11, 1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 70 Dahill Road, Brooklyn, New York, 
          Apartment 1 - G, wherein the Administrator determined that the 
          owner's application for a restoration of rent should be granted, 
          based upon a restoration of services.  The Administrator based his 
          determination on an inspection held on October 25, 1990 and 
          restored the rent by $10.00 per month, plus all lawful increases 
          granted subsequent to the order reducing rent which was issued on 
          February 22, 1990. 

               The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the 
          record and has carefully considered that portion of the record 
          relevant to the issue raised by the administrative appeal.  

               The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly 
          restored the rent of the subject apartment.

               On appeal, the petitioner-tenant claimed, inter alia, that she 
          did not receive notice of the inspection held on October 25, 1990 
          and that the inspector's findings were erroneous.

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FA220070RT

               In answer to the petition, the owner asserts that he received 
          the same notices of the "No Access" inspections as the tenant.  The 
          owner further argues that the tenant has provided no basis for 
          revoking the rent restoration order.

               The tenant replied that four outstanding violations by HPD 
          establish that the owner has not completed necessary repairs.  She 
          demands that DHCR obtain the HPD files.

               After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record 
          the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

               The Housing and Maintenance Code provides,

               S D26-10.07  Owner's right of access---No tenant shall refuse
               to permit the owner or his agent or employee, to enter his
               dwelling unit or other space under his control to make repairs
               or improvements required by this code or other law or to 
               inspect such apartment or other space to determine compliance
               with this code or any other provision of law, if the right of
               entry is exercised at a reasonable time and in a reasonable 
               manner.  The department may by regulation restrict the time 
               and manner of such inspections.

               The Commissioner notes that the DHCR inspection staff made 
          four attempts to gain access to this apartment, without success.  
          Operating procedures mandate a maximum of two inspectorial visits. 

               The Commissioner has considered the tenant's allegation that 
          she was not given adequate notice of the inspection held on October 
          25, 1990 and finds this claim to be without merit.  This assertion 
          is belied by the record in this proceeding, which discloses that 
          the  Rent Administrator notified the tenant of the proposed 
          inspection on several occasions.  Specifically, notices were mailed 
          on May 9, 1990, September 10, 1990, September 19, 1990 and October 
          4, 1990.The latter notice was sent to the tenant by Certified Mail 
          (P-499044373), but the tenant refused to pick up the mail.  
          Moreover, the record reveals that, on September 17, 1990, the 
          inspection scheduled for September 19, 1990 was cancelled at the 
          tenant's request.

               The record further discloses that the tenant has on various 
          occasions refused access to the owner's employees as well as staff 
          of DHCR thereby negating efforts to restore services to the subject 

               The owner submits that in a Civil Court action, before Hon. 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FA220070RT

          Justice Grayshaw, under Docket Number 096218/88, a "so ordered" 
          stipulation was entered into by the parties, in which, it was 
          agreed that the tenant would provide access to the premises for the 
          purpose of correcting any violations which may exist in the 

               Furthermore, the inspection report of October 25, 1990, made 
          specific reference to the tenant's abusive nature and lack of 
          cooperation and further noted that the tenant summoned the police 
          during the course of the inspection. 

               The appealed order of December 11, 1990 noted that:

                    "Although the inspector revealed that repairs
                    to the loose linoleum floor in kitchen near 
                    entrance have not been completed, evidence in
                    file indicates tenant's refusal to give access
                    to repairmen in order to have repairs completed.
                    Therefore, the rent is hereby restored in the 
                    amount of $10.00."

               The same inspection report revealed that all other services 
          were being maintained by the owner.  

               The Commissioner further notes that processing of this case 
          was inordinately delayed because the tenant contemporaneously filed 
          a harassment complaint (22,784 - HL) with the DHCR, which resulted 
          in a finding of "no harassment."

               Furthermore, existence of HPD violations, if any, for the 
          subject apartment does not warrant revocation of the order.  Even 
          if there are HPD violations for identical items that were the basis 
          for a DHCR rent reduction, they would not warrant revocation of the 
          rent restoration order in this proceeding which was determined on 
          the basis of a failure to give access.  

               The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based 
          his determination on the entire record, including the results of 
          the on-site inspection conducted on October 25, 1990, and that the 
          Administrator properly restored the rent upon determining that the 
          owner had restored some services and the tenant had prevented the 
          owner form restoring others by denying access

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is 

               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FA220070RT



                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          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