Docket Number: FE 110023-RO
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.: FE 110023-RO
MICHAEL PISTILLI, DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: FA 110074-S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 3, 1991, the above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued on April 4, 1991,
concerning t e housing accommodations relating to the above-
described docket number.
This administrative appeal is being determined pursuant to the
provisions of 2520.6(r) and 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issue raised by the administrative appeal.
On January 8, 1991, 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 February 10, 1991, the owner denied the
allegations set forth in the tenant's complaint or otherwise
asserted that all required repairs had been or would be completed.
Thereafter on March 12, 1991, an inspection of the subject apartment
was conducted by a D.H.C.R. inspector who confirmed the existence of
On April 4, 1991, the Rent Administrator directed restoration of
these services and further ordered a reduction of the stabilization
In its petition for administrative review, the owner states, in
substance, that repairs have been performed and that the tenant
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
Docket Number: FE 110023-RO
Although the owner contends that repairs were effectuated prior to
the issuance of the Administrator's order, the Commissioner notes
that the owner submitted insufficient evidence to rebut the February
10, 1991 inspection finding the existence of defective conditions.
As to the owner alleging that the tenant refused access, the owner
failed to follow Policy Statement 90-5 "Arranging Repairs/No Access
Inspections." The owner failed to show that it submitted to DHCR
copies of two letters to the tenant attempting to arrange access
dates; that each of the letters were mailed at least eight days
before the proposed date for access; that the second letter was sent
certified mail, return receipt requested; and that the return
receipt was also submitted with the request for a no-access
Accordingly, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the owner has
offered insufficient reason to disturb the Administrator's order,
and it should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby