Docket Number: FE 110083-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 110083-RO
MICHAEL PISTILLI, DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: EI 110364-S
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
On December 6, 1990, the owner mailed DHCR copies of two appointment
letters, copies of the certificate of mailing and the return
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
The Rent Administrator directed on April 26, 1991 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 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,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby