STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: FJ410531RT
          SANTA L. ARROYO                         RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: ED410210S


               On October 1, 1991 the above named petitioner-tenant timely 
          refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of 
          the Rent Administrator issued August 7, 1991. The order concerned 
          housing accommodations known as Apt. 4A located at 79 Allen Street, 
          New York, N.Y.  The Administrator denied the tenant's application 
          for a rent reduction based on the failure of the tenant to provide 
          access to the subject apartment.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 

               The tenant commenced this proceeding on April 20, 1990 by 
          filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services and stated, 
          in sum, that the owner was not maintaining certain required 
          apartment services.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on May 4, 
          1990 and stated, in sum, that the tenant had never given notice of 
          conditions requiring repair prior to the filing of the complaint 
          and that repairs had been made where required.
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The tenant was notified that the inspection would take 
          place on July 3, 1991.  The inspector reported that access could 
          not be obtained to the building.  The inspection was rescheduled 
          for July 16, 1991 and, once again, the tenant was notified to be 
          present.  The inspector was again denied access to the building. 
          The tenant wrote to the Division on July 30, 1991 explaining that 
          she was out of the country when the first inspection was scheduled 
          but her daughter called to reschedule the appointment.  According 


          to the tenant's letter, the inspector could not gain access to the 
          building because the front door is closed, there is no bell and the 
          inspector did not have the tenant's new phone number which had been 
          changed since the complaint was filed almost one year ago. The 
          tenant said she waited all day for the inspector and called his 
          office later in the day and he explained what had happened. 

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on August 
          7, 1991 and denied the application based on the inspector's failure 
          to obtain access.

               On appeal the tenant again states that she was out of the 
          country at the time of the first inspection and that the inspector 
          could not get access to the building at the time of the second 
          inspection.  The tenant argues that the fact that the inspector 
          could not get access to the building is the fault of the owner. The 
          petition was served on the owner on December 9, 1991. 

               The owner filed a response on December 12, 19991 and stated 
          that the inspector reported that access was denied to the apartment 
          and not the building and that the Administrator correctly denied 
          the tenant's application.
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted 
          and the proceeding should be remanded to the Administrator for 
          further processing.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the record supports 
          the tenant's assertion that the inspector could not obtain access 
          to the building on two different occasions.  The inspector's report 
          clearly states that the inspector could not even get into the 
          building to alert the tenant to his arrival.  The tenant made 
          reasonable and diligent efforts to contact the inspector and the 
          Rent Administrator to resolve the access problem.  Therefore, the 
          petition must be granted to the extent of remanding this proceeding 
          to the Administrator so that a new inspection can be arranged.  The 
          DHCR inspector should contact the tenant by telephone prior to the 
          inspection to make arrangements to get access to the building and 

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it 


               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          granted and that the proceeding be, and the same hereby is, 
          remanded to the Rent Administrator for further processing 
          consistent with this order and opinion.


                                             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