Docket Number: FG 220272-RT
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.: FG 220272-RT
FRANK CAMINITI, D.R.O. DOCKET NO.: EK 220176-OR
PETITIONER
----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
AND REMANDING PROCEEDING FOR FURTHER PROCESSING
On July 25, 1991, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on June
25, 1991, concerning the housing accommodation known as 1367-69
65th Street, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment 3C, wherein the
Administrator granted the owner's application to restore the rent.
The issue in this appeal is whether the restoration of rent was
warranted.
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.
This proceeding was originally commenced on November 20, 1990, when
the owner applied for a restoration of rent. In DH-220361-S the
rent of the subject apartment was reduced because the owner failed
to provide services within the apartment.
In the application for restoration of rent the owner alleged that
the tenant unreasonably refused to permit the owner to restore the
service complained of by failing to provide access. To support
this contention the owner provided the Administrator with an
affidavit submitted by his contractor asserting that he has made
several attempts to set a date for painting; however, the tenant
failed to provide access. On February 12, 1991, a Notice of
Inspection for access was mailed to the tenant and owner. Both
parties were advised that an inspection of the subject apartment
would take place on February 21, 1991, at 10:00 a.m. Additionally,
both parties were advised that failure of either party to keep this
appointment would result in a determination based solely on the
evidence presently in the record. On the date of inspection the
tenant did not provide access. Accordingly, the Administrator
restored the rent.
In this petition, the tenant contends that the Administrator's
order is not based on evidence which justifies a restoration of the
rent. Moreover, the tenant asserts that he did not receive
notification of the inspection.
The owner was served with the petition however has failed to
Docket Number: FG 220272-RT
interpose an answer.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the tenant's petition
should be remanded.
Evidence within the file indicates that the Notice of Inspection
sent to the tenant was not addressed properly. Therefore it is
presumed that the petitioner did not provide access because he did
not receive the notice of the scheduled inspection.
The Administrator is advised to arrange another "no access"
inspection, properly addressed to the owner and tenant to determine
whether the services have been restored within the subject
apartment.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations,
it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted to
extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent Administrator for
further processing in accordance with this order and opinion. The
Administrator's order directing restoration of the rent remains in
effect until a new order is issued on remand.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
