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.: FL620105RT
BETTY WRIGHT RENT
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
AND REMANDING PROCEEDING TO RENT ADMINISTRATOR
On December 11, 1991 the above named petitioner-tenant filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued November 7, 1991. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt. 5D located at 2979 Marion Avenue,
Bronx, N.Y.. The Administrator denied the tenant's complaint based
on a finding that the tenant had not provided access to the subject
apartment for purposes of a physical inspection.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The tenant commenced this proceeding on July 6, 1990 by filing
a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services and alleged, in
sum, that the owner was not maintaining certain required services.
She listed as her mailing address a post office box located in the
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded
an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on October
15, 1990 and stated, in relevant part, that the tenant was refusing
the owner access to the subject apartment. The owner submitted
documentation that it had complied with the procedure in DHCR's
Policy Statement 90-5 regarding the sending of certified letters to
the tenant requesting access. The owner requested that a "no
access" inspection of the subject apartment be ordered.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. A notice was sent to the tenant at her building and
apartment address and not to the post office box she cited on the
complaint. The tenant was notified that the inspection would take
place on October 9, 1990 and October 10, 1990 between the hours of
10AM and 4PM. The inspector attempted to gain access to the subject
apartment on both days but reported that the tenant failed to keep
The Administrator issued the order hereunder review on
November 7, 1991 and denied the complaint based on the tenant's
failure to provide access to the inspector.
On appeal the tenant states that she was not notified of the
scheduled DHCR inspections described above and that any notices
sent to her may have been sent to the wrong mailing address. The
petition was served on the owner on December 30, 1991.
The owner filed a response on August 13, 1992 and stated that
the tenant's petition did not set forth any basis for reversal of
the Administrator's order, that the tenant had failed to provide
access upon request and that the petition should be denied.
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.
It is apparent from the record that the Administrator did not
send the notice of the scheduled inspections to the tenant at her
post office box which the tenant indicated as her mailing address
but rather to the tenant's apartment address. The tenant is
correct in arguing that the Administrator erred in doing so. Since
the tenant never got proper notice of the inspections, the petition
must be granted and the proceeding remanded to the Administrator
for a new physical inspection to be conducted after proper notice
to the tenant at her mailing address.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
granted to the extent of remanding this proceeding to the
Administrator for further processing consistent with this order and
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA