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.: GC520117RT
MANFRED KAISER, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: FD520333S
PETITIONER PREMISES: 41 Bennett Ave.
Apt. No. 35
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for administrative review
of an order issued on February 7, 1992 concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issues
raised by this administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on April 9, 1991 by the tenant filing a
complaint which asserts that the owner failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment.
In an answer filed on May 13, 1991, the owner stated that the tenant had
unreasonably refused access to repairs being done in the subject
apartment. The owner submitted copies of letters requesting the tenant
to allow repairs to the apartment, with copies of certified mailings and
Two on site inspections were conducted thereafter. One inspection was
conducted on November 18, 1991 by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the
existence of decreased services. A "For Access Inspection" was conducted
on January 21, 1992 by the same staff member who reported that the tenant
and the owner with a workman
were present; and that the tenant refused access, stating that the
owner's workman previously made repairs in an unworkmanlike manner.
On February 7, 1992, the Administrator terminated the proceeding and
denied the tenant's application based on the determination that the
tenant failed to provide access to the owner on January 21, 1992 for
purposes of attending to repairs.
In the petition for admininstrative review, the tenant contends in
substance that at the scheduled appointment for repairs, he was willing
to have services restored; that the workman left him, and the owner and
the inspector followed, after he started interrogating the workman about
knowledge of English and repair skills; and that copies of the inspection
reports from the NYC Department of Housing and Preservation Development
indicate the existence of these defective conditions.
In an answer filed on April 20, 1992, the owner asserted that at the the
"For Access Inspection", the first worker of his repair team to show up
"got such a yelling from (the tenant) as well as no permission to do the
work that he left with the inspector's approval."
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the Notice of Inspection (For Access)
includes in its notice the following provision:
Failure of the owner and/or the owner's repair person(s) to
be present and ready to attend to repairs and/or restore services,
or failure of the tenant to keep this appointment will result in
a determination based solely on the evidence presently in the
The owner submitted sufficient evidence in the proceeding below to
establish the tenant's refusal of access, mandating a Notice of
Inspection (For Access) in accordance with Policy Statement 90-5. Thus,
the Administrator properly did not consider the results of the first
inspection, and properly based the determination on the results of the
Notice of Inspection (For Access).
The Administrator's determination was based on a staff inspector's report
which found that the tenant refused access to the owner's repairman on
January 21, 1992. The Administrator properly relied on an impartial
report of a staff inspector who is not a party to this proceeding. The
determination was in all respects proper and is hereby sustained.
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 Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA