DHCR Decisions
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FA - 220070 - RT
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
------------------------------------X
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
FA220070RT
:
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
EB220134OR
DEVORAH BOCK,
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 2, 1991, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on December
11, 1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 70 Dahill Road, Brooklyn, New York,
Apartment 1 - G, wherein the Administrator determined that the
owner's application for a restoration of rent should be granted,
based upon a restoration of services. The Administrator based his
determination on an inspection held on October 25, 1990 and
restored the rent by $10.00 per month, plus all lawful increases
granted subsequent to the order reducing rent which was issued on
February 22, 1990.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issue raised by the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly
restored the rent of the subject apartment.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant claimed, inter alia, that she
did not receive notice of the inspection held on October 25, 1990
and that the inspector's findings were erroneous.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FA220070RT
In answer to the petition, the owner asserts that he received
the same notices of the "No Access" inspections as the tenant. The
owner further argues that the tenant has provided no basis for
revoking the rent restoration order.
The tenant replied that four outstanding violations by HPD
establish that the owner has not completed necessary repairs. She
demands that DHCR obtain the HPD files.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The Housing and Maintenance Code provides,
S D26-10.07 Owner's right of access---No tenant shall refuse
to permit the owner or his agent or employee, to enter his
dwelling unit or other space under his control to make repairs
or improvements required by this code or other law or to
inspect such apartment or other space to determine compliance
with this code or any other provision of law, if the right of
entry is exercised at a reasonable time and in a reasonable
manner. The department may by regulation restrict the time
and manner of such inspections.
The Commissioner notes that the DHCR inspection staff made
four attempts to gain access to this apartment, without success.
Operating procedures mandate a maximum of two inspectorial visits.
The Commissioner has considered the tenant's allegation that
she was not given adequate notice of the inspection held on October
25, 1990 and finds this claim to be without merit. This assertion
is belied by the record in this proceeding, which discloses that
the Rent Administrator notified the tenant of the proposed
inspection on several occasions. Specifically, notices were mailed
on May 9, 1990, September 10, 1990, September 19, 1990 and October
4, 1990.The latter notice was sent to the tenant by Certified Mail
(P-499044373), but the tenant refused to pick up the mail.
Moreover, the record reveals that, on September 17, 1990, the
inspection scheduled for September 19, 1990 was cancelled at the
tenant's request.
The record further discloses that the tenant has on various
occasions refused access to the owner's employees as well as staff
of DHCR thereby negating efforts to restore services to the subject
apartment.
The owner submits that in a Civil Court action, before Hon.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FA220070RT
Justice Grayshaw, under Docket Number 096218/88, a "so ordered"
stipulation was entered into by the parties, in which, it was
agreed that the tenant would provide access to the premises for the
purpose of correcting any violations which may exist in the
premises.
Furthermore, the inspection report of October 25, 1990, made
specific reference to the tenant's abusive nature and lack of
cooperation and further noted that the tenant summoned the police
during the course of the inspection.
The appealed order of December 11, 1990 noted that:
"Although the inspector revealed that repairs
to the loose linoleum floor in kitchen near
entrance have not been completed, evidence in
file indicates tenant's refusal to give access
to repairmen in order to have repairs completed.
Therefore, the rent is hereby restored in the
amount of $10.00."
The same inspection report revealed that all other services
were being maintained by the owner.
The Commissioner further notes that processing of this case
was inordinately delayed because the tenant contemporaneously filed
a harassment complaint (22,784 - HL) with the DHCR, which resulted
in a finding of "no harassment."
Furthermore, existence of HPD violations, if any, for the
subject apartment does not warrant revocation of the order. Even
if there are HPD violations for identical items that were the basis
for a DHCR rent reduction, they would not warrant revocation of the
rent restoration order in this proceeding which was determined on
the basis of a failure to give access.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based
his determination on the entire record, including the results of
the on-site inspection conducted on October 25, 1990, and that the
Administrator properly restored the rent upon determining that the
owner had restored some services and the tenant had prevented the
owner form restoring others by denying access
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FA220070RT
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|