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.:
E.O. ASSOCIATES c/o DOCKET NO. :
PARKOFF MANAGEMENT FB 610199-OR
2765 Matthews Ave., Apt.4-C
PETITIONER Bronx, New York
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 23, 1991, the above-named owner filed a timely
petition for administrative review of an order issued on August 22,
1991 concerning the housing accommodations relating to the above-
described docket number, wherein the Administrator denied the
owner's rent restoration application.
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.
The above-named owner commenced this proceeding on February 19,
1991 by filing an application to restore rent that had been reduced
in an order issued on February 15, 1990 (DK 610047-S) finding that
certain services were not being provided or maintained. The owner
claimed in the restoration application that all repairs have been
completed and submitted a copy of an undated work order purportedly
signed by the current occupant of the subject apartment stating
that all work had been done.
On March 5, 1991, a copy of the owner's application was mailed to
the current tenant. The Administrator's file does not contain any
response to this application.
On June 5, 1991, a "Notice of Inspection (For Access)" was mailed
to the complainant or occupant and the owner, directing the tenant
and the owner and/or the owner's repair person(s) to be present at
the subject apartment on June 18, 1991 at 10:00 - 10:30 A.M. to
provide access to the owner for the purposes of repairs. The
notice further states the "(f)ailure of the owner and/or the
owner's repair person(s) to be present and ready to attend to
repairs and/or restore services, or failure of the tenant to keep
this appointment will result in a determination based solely on the
evidence presently in the record."
The Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspector who
visited the subject premises on June 18, 1991 reported that the
owner and the tenant did not keep the appointment and that the
building superintendent did not have the keys to the apartment and
did not know the name of the current tenant. The inspector left
under the door another notice of inspection scheduled for June 19,
The tenant failed to keep the second appointment and the building
superintendent had no keys for the apartment.
On August 22, 1991, the Administrator issued the order appealed
herein denying the owner's application based on the owner's failure
to be present at the scheduled no-access inspections on June 18,
1991 and June 19, 1991.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that its agent
waited at the building until noon but the inspector did not appear.
The owner also refers to the previously submitted signed work
order, another copy of which is enclosed with the petition, and
asserts that it has complied with the directive to restore
services. The record does not contain any answer to the petition.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be granted.
The evidence of record reveals that the owner submitted with its
application a copy of a signed work order stating that all work has
been done. The application was served on the current occupant but
no response was received disputing the owner's application. The
tenant failed to keep the appointments with the inspector scheduled
for June 18 and 19, 1991 and did not respond to the petition.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that restoration of the rent is
warranted. The owner's agent (superintendent) did appear at the
two inspections. An owner cannot compel an uncooperative or
disinterested tenant to give access to verify the completion of
repairs to conditions complained about by a prior occupant. The
current occupant was given ample notice and opportunity to refute
the owner's entitlement to restoration of rent but has expressed no
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted,
and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
revoked and that the owner's rent restoration application be, and
the same hereby is granted and the rent is restored to the level in
effect prior to the rent reduction plus any lawful increases effec-
tive April 1, 1991. Any arrears due to the owner as a result of
this Order and Opinion may be paid by the tenant in twelve equal
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner