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.:
WILLIAM SLAVSKY, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER EK 210100-OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 22, 1991, the above-named tenant filed a petition for
administrative review of orders issued on March 13, 1991 and
February 23, 1991, by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing
accommodation known as Apartment C-14, 8320 Bay Parkway,
Brooklyn, New York, wherein rent was restored due o a restora-
tion of service.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant
to the issues raised by the petition for review.
On October 12, 1990 the subject owner, filed an application for
a rent restoration based on the alleged restoration of services
to the subject apartment.
On February 4 and 6, 1991 and on January 28, 1991 physical in-
spections of the subject apartment were attempted by the Division
of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). The inspector, in his
report, noted that the tenant failed to provide access on both
dates and that the cellar had no evidence of odors.
On March 13, 1991 and on February 25, 1991, the Rent Adminis-
trator issued the orders here under review finding that a
restoration of services had occurred and restoring the tenant's
rent effective on April 1, 1991 and on March 1, 1991 in the
amounts of eleven and six dollars respectively.
In his petition for administrative review the tenant requests
reversal of the administrator's orders alleging that he was out
of town at the time that the inspector came and that the in-
spector did not see the correct area of the cellar.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that none of the allegations made by the
tenant in his petition are substantiated by any supporting
evidence. Accordingly, the tenant has offered insufficient
reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's order. The Commis-
sioner also notes that three notices were sent to the tenant
advising him of scheduled inspections all of which included the
inspector's name and telephone number. The tenant has not
alleged any attempt to reschedule the inspections nor did he make
the apartment available for inspection. Moreover, the alleged
odor was purported to emanate from the cellar. The inspector
did obtain access to the cellar and found no evidence of any odor
therein. Further, the Commissioner notes that on May 16, 1990
the tenant advised the Compliance Bureau of this Division that
the condition had been corrected.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations
for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby