FK 110484 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.: FK 110484 RT
BARBARA MERRITT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: EA 110378 S
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On November 12, 1991 the above named petitioner-tenant timely
refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of
the Rent Administrator issued June 20, 1991. The order concerned
housing accommodations known as Apt 4K located at 88-05 Merrick
Blvd., Jamaica, N.Y. The Administrator denied the tenant's
application for a rent reduction and terminated the proceeding
based on the failure of the tenant to afford access to a DHCR
inspector.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on January 26, 1990 by
filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein
she alleged that there were water leaks in the bathroom, and
contaminated water backing into the bathtub and basin.
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded
an opportunity to respond. The owner filed responses to the
complaint on February 5, 1990 and June 18, 1990. The owner stated,
in part, that the tenant was refusing to provide access to the
subject apartment. The owner also submitted documentation, in the
form of requests for access, to substantiate the owner's
statements.
The Administrator sent a Notice of Inspection (For Access) to
the parties on May 21, 1991. The notice stated that an inspector
would visit the apartment on May 30, 1991 at 11 AM. Both parties
were directed to be present so as to provide access to the owner
for the purposes of attending to repairs.
The inspector, building manager and superintendent appeared at
FK 110484 RT
the apartment at the time set forth in the notice. However, the
tenant failed to keep the appointment and the tenant's son refused
to give access to the apartment.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on June
20, 1991 and denied the tenant's application based on the failure
to afford access to the DHCR inspector on May 30, 1991. The
proceeding was ordered terminated.
On appeal the tenant states that she was not aware that the
inspector was coming on May 30, 1991 and suggests that the
inspector reschedule the inspection. The owner filed a response to
the petition on August 1, 1991 and stated, in substance, that the
Administrator's order was correctly issued and should be affirmed.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The relevant inquiry in deciding this administrative appeal is
whether the Administrator was correct in issuing the order here
under review based on the evidence in the record at the time of
issuance. It is clear from that record that the notice of the
appointment for the inspection was correctly addressed and not
returned by the Post Office. It was the responsibility of the
tenant to be available on the date in question or make arrangements
for entry to the apartment by the owner and his workers. The
tenant has not offered an acceptable excuse for the failure to
afford access. Accordingly, the order here under review is
affirmed. This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to
the tenant's right to refile for a rent reduction.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 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 is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|