Docket Number: FE 110083-RO
                                 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.: FE 110083-RO 
                                            :  
             MICHAEL PISTILLI,                 DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                               DOCKET NO.: EI 110364-S  
                              PETITIONER    : 
        ------------------------------------X                           
          
           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

        On May 7, 1991, the above-named owner filed a  timely  petition  for
        administrative  review  of  an  order  issued  on  April  26,  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 September 20, 1990, 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  October  30,  1990,  the  owner  denied  the
        allegations  set  forth  in  the  tenants'  complaint  or  otherwise
        asserted that all required repairs had been or will be completed.

        On November 7, 1990, the owner wrote DHCR  that  the  tenant  denied
        access for repairs.

        On November 21, 1990, DHCR informed the owner  to  comply  with  the
        procedures of Policy Statement  90-5  "Arranging  Repairs/No  Access
        Inspections."

        On December 6, 1990, the owner mailed DHCR copies of two appointment 
        letters, copies  of  the  certificate  of  mailing  and  the  return
        receipt.

        Thereafter on  January  25,  1991,  an  inspection  of  the  subject
        apartment was conducted by a D.H.C.R. inspector  who  confirmed  the
        existence of defective conditions.  The owner, with  his  repairman,
        and the tenant were present at the  inspection.   But  because  "the
        tenant had to work at that time,  an  appointment  was  set  up  for
        repairs to be completed on February 2, 1991."

        On February 21, 1991, DHCR inquired whether repairs were completed.

        In a response filed on March 4, 1991, the tenant stated that repairs 
        were still not completed.







        Docket Number: FE 110083-RO

        Again on April 11, 1991, an inspection of the subject apartment  was
        conducted by a D.H.C.R. inspector who  confirmed  the  existence  of
        defective conditions.

        The Rent Administrator directed on April  26,  1991  restoration  of
        these services and further ordered a reduction of the  stabilization
        rent.

        In its petition for administrative  review,  the  owner  states,  in
        substance, that repairs have been performed on March  16,  1991  and
        that the delay was caused by the tenant refusing access.

        After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
        this petition should be denied.

        The owner's contention is  that  repairs  were  made  following  the
        issuance of the Administrator's order.   Then,  the  Administrator's
        order reducing the  rent,  because  inspection  disclosed  decreased
        services, was correct when issued.

        The owner's allegation that the tenant refused access and caused the 
        delay in the work is not proven in the record.  The parties  agreed,
        after a no-access inspection  on  January  25,  1991,  that  repairs
        should be completed on February 2, 1991.  At this  time,  the  owner
        has not proven denied access.  Another inspection conducted on April 
        11, 1991 verified that defective conditions still exist.

        Accordingly, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the owner has 
        offered insufficient reason to disturb the Administrator's order.

        THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law  and  Code,
        it is

        ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,  and
        that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
        is, affirmed.

        ISSUED:




                                                                      
                                        ELLIOT SANDER
                                        Deputy Commissioner


    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name