DOCKET NO.: HB420042RO
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. HB420042RO
: DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR'S
SUZANNE GOTTLEIB SOLOMON, DOCKET NO. FD420029BO (DK426312BR)
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative review of an
order issued concerning the housing accommodations known as 243 West 100th
Street, Apt. 1R, New York, NY.
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 issue before the Commissioner is whether the Administrator's order was
The Administrator's order being appealed, FD420020BO, was issued on January
8, 1993. In that order, the Administrator affirmed the finding of
DK426312BR, issued March 14, 1991, that the owner be denied eligibility for
a 1990/91 Maximum Base Rent (MBR) increase, due to the owner's failure to
grant access to a DHCR inspector for the purpose of determining whether
violations of record at the subject premises had been cleared. At challenge
below, the owner had requested a DHCR inspection to vouch for her assertions
below that all violations had been cleared.
On appeal, the owner states (in full):
"No one is home during the day. The inspector must arrange for
access by calling us in advance at (owner's telephone #)..."
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
An examination of the file reveals that a Violation Status Report (VSR)
discloses that, as of September 27, 1990, all the outstanding violations at
the subject premise bore the status "A", meaning that inspectors ware denied
access to these violations. The Commissioner notes that these violations
were located within public areas, as well as within individual apartment.
On June 26, 1991, the subject premises were inspected by the New York City
DOCKET NO.: HB420042RO
Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). The HPD inspection
disclosed that all of the violations reported as "no access" by the VSR of
the previous September were still outstanding.
On August 28, 1992 the DHCR sent the owner an Inspection Request. The DHCR
inspector and the owner apparently agreed that the inspection would be
carried out on December 14 or 16, 1992.
The DHCR inspector was unable to gain access to the subject premises in order
to ascertain whether violations had been cleared. An examination of the file
reveals a note (apparently by the DHCR inspector) stating that the "superin
tendent who has key refuses access."
The Commissioner notes that the owner had four months' notice of the
inspection dates. The Commissioner is of the opinion that this provided the
owner with ample time in which to notify her agent the superintendent of the
The Commissioner notes that at no time between the owner's notification that
the inspection would be carried out on December 14 or 16, 1992 (on August 28,
1992) and the actual dates of the inspection did the owner ever communicate
to the DHCR that either date was unsatisfactory. Nor did the owner request
an alternative inspection date. The Commissioner further notes that DHCR
inspections are not routine procedure in MBR disputes (such as the instant
proceeding) but that in the instant proceeding the owner at challenge
explicitly requested a DHCR inspection of the subject premises to ascertain
whether the violations had been cleared. Additionally, an HPD inspection
conducted on June 26, 1991 (after nearly 3/4 of the 1990/91 MBR cycle had
elapsed) disclosed the continued existence of the violations.
The Commissioner is thus of the opinion that the owner's statement on appeal
"instructing" the inspector how to arrange access is disingenuous. As noted
above, the owner had ample time before the DHCR inspection in which to give
such information to the inspector. Moreover, the fact that the violations
had not been cleared by June 26, 1991, and that the VSR similarly reported
denial of access to the subject premises tend to indicate that the Adminis
trator was correct in denying the owner eligibility to raise MBRs for 1990/91
at the subject premises.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and Eviction
Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and the same hereby
is denied and that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA