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

          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: HI110076RT

                    Denise Knight,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: GJ110096OR


          The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for administrative 
          review of an order issued on September 16, 1993 concerning the 
          housing accommodation known as 85-29 114 Street, Apartment 1B, 
          Queens, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined the 
          owner's rent restoration application.

          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 owner commenced the proceeding by filing an application to 
          restore rent previously reduced per Docket No. FK110114S.  The 
          owner asserted, among other things, that the tenant had refused to 
          permit the owner access to restore the services which were the 
          basis of the rent reduction order issued on October 14, 1992.

          The same allegations had been made in the underlying rent reduction 
          proceedings.  The record therein confirmed that the tenant would 
          allow access grudgingly, after extensive communication between the 
          parties, or in connection with judicial or other City and DHCR 
          administrative proceedings.  The record therein further established 
          that once the owner obtained access the repairs that were 
          undertaken were not completed in a workmanlike manner.  The tenant 
          also conceded therein that she refused access thereafter, 
          contending that it would have been futile since the owner had 
          failed to complete repairs properly when he was given the 
          opportunity.  The Commissioner denied the owner's appeal of the 
          rent reduction order based on, among other things, that the owner 
          did not establish that the tenant's interference had prevented the 
          owner from completing the repairs in a workmanlike manner.
          In light of the tenant's admission in the previous proceedings that 
          access would be denied the owner, the Rent Administrator's 


          precaution of scheduling a "no-access" inspection to insure relief 
          for both parties was appropriate.  The "no-access" inspection was 
          warranted to insure that the owner obtained access to make repairs 
          on the scheduled date and to protect the tenant's right to prompt 
          repairs completed in a workmanlike manner.

          Both the tenant and owner and/or his representatives were directed 
          to be present at the above apartment on July 16, 1993 at 10:00 a.m.  
          As the parties were scheduled for a City Housing Court appearance 
          on that day, at their request the "no-access" inspection was 
          rescheduled for July 23, 1993 with the consent of both parties.  
          The notice of inspection (for access) advised the owner and the 
          tenant, among other things, that "Failure of the owner and/or the 
          repair persons to be present and ready to attend to repairs and/or 
          restore services or failure of the tenant to keep this appointment 
          will result in a determination based solely on the evidence 
          presently in this record."

          Thereafter, noting that she had made an error in failing to note a 
          scheduling conflict, the tenant requested a second change of the 
          "no-access" inspection.  The tenant was advised by a letter dated 
          July 20, 1993 that further rescheduling required agreement from 
          both sides, particularly in light of the short time frame, and that 
          the owner, who had scheduled his workmen, would not agree to 
          another change.

          The tenant failed to provide access to two DHCR inspectors and the 
          owner on July 23, 1993.  Based thereon, the Rent Administrator 
          deemed the services restored, and reinstated the lawful rent.

          In this petition for administrative review, the tenant asserts that 
          "consideration of the equities warrants approval of [the tenant's] 
          PAR" request to reopen the proceedings below to permit an 
          inspection.  However, the tenant's assertions in the petition, 
          disputing a finding concerning a kitchen outlet and stating that 
          evidence of the tenant's appearance in Housing Court on July 16, 
          1993, was submitted in Enforcement Unit harassment proceedings, do 
          not raise matters warranting equity consideration, nor establish 
          that the Rent Administrator erred in granting rent restoration 
          based on the tenant's failure to give access to the DHCR inspector.

          In subsequent submissions the tenant argues that as the parties had 
          mutually consented to an adjournment of the July 16, 1993 
          inspection due to a Court appearance with the owner, the tenant's 
          request to adjourn the July 23, 1993 "no-access" inspection 
          constituted the tenant's first request for a postponement, so as to 
          suggest that such a first postponement without prejudice was a 
          matter of right.
          There is, in fact, no "right" to have at least one adjournment of 
          a "no access" inspection.  While the Rent Administrator may 
          accommodate the parties' requests for adjournments, the decision to 
          do so is left to the Rent Administrator's sound discretion.  In 


          light of the record, the fact that a "no-access" inspection 
          requires a significant allocation of the DHCR's limited inspection 
          staff and resources to conduct inspections and to be present during 
          the repairs, and the fact that the owner had stated that workmen 
          were scheduled and were prepared to complete repairs, the Rent 
          Administrator's order restoring rent predicated on the tenant's 
          failure to grant access was correct, neither arbitrary nor an abuse 
          of discretion and should be affirmed.  

          The fact that the tenant's occupation as a flight attendant 
          allegedly precluded her presence at the "no-access" inspection is 
          also insufficient to warrant reconsideration.  The tenant's 
          unwillingness or inability to make arrangements to provide access 
          should not prejudice or delay the owner's right to a rent 
          restoration predicated on the owner's readiness, ability and 
          willingness to complete repairs.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that the tenant's petition fails 
          to establish any basis for modifying or revoking the Rent 
          Administrator's order.

          The owner remains obligated to correct the defective conditions 
          upon obtaining access to effect repairs.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          that the Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby is, 


                                             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