Google Search TenantNet Web


DHCR Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) Decisions

In 1994, under pressure from tenant advocates, DHCR released approximately 6,000 PAR decisions. After Governor Pataki took office in 1995, DHCR refused to release other decisions in bulk. These decisions generally cover the 1990-1994 period and in many cases do not reflect current law or DHCR practice. The reader is cautioned to be aware of changes to the Rent Stabilization Law, the Rent Stabilization Code and DHCR practice since 1994. Also this database does not include all decisions prior to 1994 as DHCR intentionally withheld many decisions for unknown reasons.

Accessing the decisions

Search DHCR decisions by keyword

 

Note: Search must contain at least four characters.

    Contains all words
    Contains the exact phrase
    Contains at least one word
   or ... Browse decisions by docket number
   or ... Download compressed zip files of all decisions

DHCR Decisions







          Docket Number: FE 120221-RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433


          ----------------------------------X 
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE    ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: FE 120221-RO 
                                                
             HERBERT HOFFMAN,                    DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: EI 120502-S

                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                PETITIONER       5300 65th Place, Apt. 4H
          ----------------------------------X    Maspeth, NY 11378
                

             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On May 20, 1991, the above-named owner filed a timely petition  for
          administrative review  of  an  order  issued  on  April  11,  1991,
          concerning t e  housing  accommodations  relating  to  the   above-
          described docket number.  

          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.

          On September 19, 1990, 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 November 29, 1990, the owner  asserted  that
          the tenant by its negligence caused the  defective  conditions  and
          that the tenant refused access for repairs.

          On December 5, 1990, the owner was  informed  of  Policy  Statement
          90-5 "Arranging Repairs/No  Access  Inspection"  and  requested  to
          follow the proper procedures to repair  in  a  situation,  as  this
          case, of no access.

          On January 8, 1991, the owner informed the agency that  "(a)ll  the
          necessary work has been completed."

          Thereafter on April 2, 1991, the subject apartment was inspected by 
          D.H.C.R. which confirmed the existence of defective conditions.

          The Administrator directed on April 11, 1991 restoration  of  these
          services and further ordered a reduction  of  the  legal  regulated
          rent.

          In this petition, the owner states in substance  that  repairs  had
          been  performed,  and  that  "the  tenant  had  repeatedly  refused
          access."

          Although the owner contends that repairs were effectuated prior  to
          the issuance of the Administrator's order, the  Commissioner  notes






          Docket Number: FE 120221-RO

          that the owner submitted no evidence to substantiate the contention 
          either while the proceeding was pending before the Administrator or 
          by attachment to its petition.

          The owner's contention of tenant refusing access  is  also  without
          merit.  The owner failed in its burden of proof pursuant to  Policy
          Statement 90-5 "Arranging Repairs/No Access Inspections."

          Accordingly, based on a preponderance of the  evidence,  the  owner
          has offered insufficient  reason  to  disturb  the  Administrator's
          order,  which  is  based  on  an  inspection  disclosing  defective
          conditions.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it 
          is

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

          ISSUED:




                                                                        
                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          Deputy Commissioner


    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information | Contact Us
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws |

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name