FC220278RT
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.: FC220278RT
WILLIAM SLAVSKY RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: EK220097OR
PETITIONER
-------------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 20, 1991, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
March 1, 1991, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 8320 Bay Parkway, Apt. C-14, Brooklyn, New
York, wherein the Administrator granted the owner's application to
restore the rent, which had been reduced under Docket No. BI210236S
on May 19, 1988.
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 administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly granted
the owner's application for rent restoration.
The owner's application for rent restoration, dated October 12,
1990, alleged that all repairs and services which were the subject
of the rent reduction order issued under Docket No. BI210236S, on
May 19, 1988 were either restored as established in other proceed-
ings or the tenant failed to provide access or the complaint was
withdrawn.
On December 6, 1990, the tenant filed an answer to the owner's
rent restoration application, alleging that the owner failed to
fully restore services, that he did not unreasonably refuse access
to his apartment and that he had not withdrawn any complaint.
The DHCR inspection report of February 4, 1991, revealed that
although both parties were notified to be present at the
inspection, the tenant was not present.
Based on the tenant's failure to provide access, the owner's
application was granted.
FC220278RT
On the appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserts in pertinent part,
that he was unaware that the inspector was coming on the specified
date and that on the day in question, he was out of town.
The owner was served with a copy of the petition on March 28, 1991.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The owner on proof of restoration of those services which were the
subject of the Rent Administrator's reduction order is, by law,
entitled to apply for an order of rent restoration.
The Rent Administrator, in granting the owner's rent restoration
application, based his determination on the tenant's failure to
provide access to the subject apartment to the DHCR inspector and
the owner's workers.
The Commissioner has considered the petitioner's claim that he was
not properly notified of the inspection date and finds this
argument to be without merit.
A properly addressed Notice of Inspection (For Access) was mailed
to the tenant on January 18, 1991, was not returned by the Post
Office, and is presumed to have been received by the tenant but he
failed to appear for the inspection appointment.
In view of a preponderance of evidence which shows that the tenant
was afforded adequate opportunity to provide access to his
apartment, the Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator
properly granted the owner's application for rent restoration.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and Evic-
tion Regulations for New York, it is
ORDERED, that the tenant's 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
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
|
