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

     APPEAL OF                                 DOCKET NO. HB420042RO
                                           :   DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR'S
          SUZANNE GOTTLEIB SOLOMON,            DOCKET NO. FD420029BO (DK426312BR)


     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
                                                     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