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.:FC210362RO     
                                                   (Refile of FB210032RO)
               
          Highland Boulevard Realty Co.,           RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:DL210581S      
                                                       
                                                   SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                      200 Highland Boulevard
                                                      Apt. 1G
                                                      Brooklyn, NY    
                                PETITIONER     
          -----------------------------------X                           

               ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

            The above-named owner refiled and perfected a timely petition for 
            administrative review of an order issued on January 17, 1991 
            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 the petition.

            The tenant commenced this proceeding on December 27, 1989 by filing 
            a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain 
            services in the subject apartment.

            In answer, the owner asserted in substance that the tenant refused 
            access.

            DHCR mailed to the owner a copy of Policy Statement 90-5 (Arranging 
            Repairs; No Access Inspections), informing the owner of the 
            requirements for scheduling a No Access inspection.

            Upon receipt from the owner of necessary papers indicating attempts 
            to repair the conditions, DHCR scheduled a No Access inspection on 
            December 7, 1990, informing the parties beforehand that the tenant 
            should be ready to provide access to the owner's workers who should 
            also be ready to perform the repairs at the time.

            On December 7, 1990, a No Access inspection of the subject apartment 
            was conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported that the bathroom 
            ceiling was repaired in an unworkmanlike manner; that the ceiling is 
            bulging, cracked and not painted; that there are water stains and 
            mildew on ceiling; that the wall tiles are missing next to the 
            toilet; and that the bathroom and bedroom electrical fixtures are 
            missing globes. The inspector stated that the tenant's father who 
            was present allowed access, and that the owner and the owner's 
            FC210362RO








            workers were absent at the time of inspection.  

            By an order dated January 17, 1991, the Administrator directed the 
            restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.

            In this petition, the owner contends in substance that all work was 
            done after the tenant delayed access.

            In answer, the tenant asserted that the defective conditions 
            continue to exist.

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

            In the instant case, DHCR scheduled a No Access inspection on 
            December 7, 1990, informing the parties beforehand that the tenant 
            should be ready to provide access to the owner's workers who should 
            also be ready to perform the repairs at the time. During the No 
            Access inspection, a DHCR staff member confirmed the existence of 
            various defective conditions, and reported that the tenant's father 
            who was present allowed access, and that the owner and the owner's 
            workers were absent at the time of inspection.  

            Accordingly, the owner's petition does not establish any basis to 
            modify or revoke the Administrator's determination based on the 
            December 7, 1990 inspection which confirmed (1) the existence of 
            defective conditions warranting a rent reduction, and (2) the fact 
            that the owner and the owner's workers were not ready to perform 
            repairs at the No Access inspection. 

            The owner is advised to file a rent restoration application if the 
            facts so warrant.

            THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
            and Operational Bulletin 84-1, 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.



            ISSUED:




                                                                          
                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  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