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

          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.:
                                                       (Refile of 
               The 400 East 58th Street Co.,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:


          The above-named owner filed and perfected a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued on February 18, 1992, 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 400 East 58th 
          Street, Apartment 2B, New York, New York, wherein the Rent 
          Administrator determined the tenant's complaint of decreased 

          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 by filing a complaint 
          asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain services in 
          the subject apartment.  The tenant's complaint was filed on 
          November 8, 1991.  


          In an answer, the owner denied the allegations set forth in the 
          complaint or asserted that the tenant did not cooperate with the 
          owner's efforts to ascertain conditions requiring repairs, or 
          otherwise asserted that all required repairs had been or would be 
          completed.  The owner's submissions included: a) a letter dated 
          October 22, 1991, certified, return receipt requested, calling for 
          access to paint the apartment; b) a letter dated October 30, 1991 
          certified, return receipt requested, calling for access to make 
          repairs; and c) purchase order dated November 26, 1991 for paint 
          for the apartment.   

          Thereafter, the DHCR conducted an inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The DHCR inspector reported peeling paint and plaster 
          in the living room, kitchen and bathroom, kitchen and bathroom 
          ceilings and walls.  Other services were found to have been 

          The Rent Administrator directed restoration of these services and 
          further ordered a reduction of the controlled rent.

          In the petition for administrative review, and in supplements 
          thereto, the owner states that the tenant refused to provide the 
          owner access to paint and plaster the apartment during the pendency 
          of the proceedings below, but has since consented to provide said 
          The tenant responded that she has never refused the owner or his 
          agents access to the apartment for the appropriate work, or broken 
          appointments or refused offers of service.

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

          The record of the proceedings below documented to some extent the 
          owner's attempts to obtain access to the tenant's apartment in 
          order to investigate and to correct the paint and plaster defects.

          The owner submits, for the first time on appeal, a copy of the 
          envelope for the October 22, 1991 certified letter, stamped "Return 
          To Sender" by the U.S. Post Office with notations that delivery was 
          attempted on October 25 and November 10, 1991; other stamped 
          entries on the envelope were not legible.  The submissions also 
          show that the tenant accepted the October 30, 1991 certified letter 
          on November 2, 1991.

          Policy Statement 90-5:  Arranging Repairs: No Access Inspections 
          sets forth the following:


               A "no-access" inspection may be conducted in response to 
               an owner's claim that a tenant (who has filed a service 
               complaint or an objection to a rent increase application) 
               has not provided access to his or her apartment to 
               correct a service or equipment deficiency.

               When the owner receives the copy of the tenant's 
               complaint from the DHCR, the owner has twenty days in 
               which to respond.  If the owner asserts that he or she is 
               unable to gain access during this time, this fact should 
               be included in the response.  In order to obtain a "no- 
               access" inspection, the owner should then submit to the 
               DHCR copies of two letters to the tenant attempting to 
               arrange access dates.  Each of the letters must be mailed 
               at least eight days before the proposed date for access 
               and the second letter must be sent by certified mail, 
               return receipt requested.  The return receipt must also 
               be submitted with the request for a no-access inspection.  

               DHCR will not schedule a "no-access" inspection without 
               receiving proof that both of these letters were sent as 
               specified.  Exceptions to this policy will be made under 
               emergency conditions or pursuant to court ordered 
          The Commissioner finds that the documentation below was 
          insufficient to trigger a "no-access" inspection, detailed in 
          Policy Statement 90-5, and cited above, in that the owner failed 
          below to specify no access and failed to submit the return receipt.  
          As Policy Statement 90-5 notes, the Rent Administrator does not 
          schedule a "no access" inspection without proof of the return 
          receipt of the notice letters sent to the tenant in the manner 
          specified.  Although the owner submitted the return receipt on 
          appeal, it could not be considered, since the scope of review is 
          limited to issues and evidence presented to the Rent Administrator 
          for consideration.  

          The separate proceedings per PAR Docket No. GB420333RO, were 
          established inadvertently based on owner's submissions  under 
          separate cover, which should have been referred to then pending 
          PAR Docket No. GB420201RO.  The proceedings are terminated as 
          duplicative; the contents therein are merged with the instant 
          proceedings per Docket No. GC420332RO.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the City Rent and 
          Eviction Law and Regulations, it is
          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is denied, and 
          the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is affirmed.  
          It is further


          ORDERED, that the petition per Docket No. GB420333RO be, and the 
          same hereby is, terminated as duplicative.


                                             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