ADM. APPEAL DOCKET NO.: BC - 210161 RO
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 APPEAL
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
BC - 210161 RO
:
DRO ORDER NO.:
K - 002367 - B
BEACH REALTY CO.
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 16, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed an
Administrative Appeal against an order issued on February 11,
1987, by the District Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall
Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations
known as 3093 Brighton 4th Street, Brooklyn, New York, various
apartments.
The issue herein is whether the District Rent Administrator
properly reduced the rent of the various apartments based upon a
reduction in services.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner alleged that the
deficiencies noted in the tenants' complaint were minor isolated
occurrences that can appear in the maintenance of a large
building and that it had made all necessary repairs.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of
record the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative
appeal should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code,
A tenant may apply to the DHCR for a reduction
of the legal regulated rent to the level in
effect prior to the most recent guidelines
adjustment, and the DHCR shall so reduce the
rent for the period for which it is found that
the owner has failed to maintain required services.
Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include
repairs and maintenance.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based
his determination on the results of an impartial inspection which
ADM. APPEAL DOCKET NO.: BC - 210161 RO
bears greater probative value than the self-serving and
unsupported allegations of the owner; and that pursuant to
Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the Administrator was mandated to
reduce the rent upon determining that the owner had failed to
maintain services.
The Commissioner notes that the petitioner's statements at
PAR constitute an admission that many of the conditions that gave
rise to the rent reduction were conditions that existed prior to
the DHCR inspection.
The Commissioner rejects the petitioner's assertion that the
conditions found were not rent reducing items.
Moreover, the tenants are entitled to all services provided
on the base date or thereafter. Broken window sashes, broken
intercom directory glass, outdated intercom directory, cracked
windowpanes, et al. are not conditions that occur normally
despite ongoing maintenance or which would be addressed as part
of periodic maintenance.
The Commissioner further notes that on March 16, 1987, the
owner filed an owner affirmation of compliance stating that it
has restored those services set forth in the order issued by the
District Rent Administrator dated February 11, 1987.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the District Rent
Administrator properly determined that the owner had failed to
maintain services, and correctly reduced the rent of the subject
accommodation.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the
owner's right to file the appropriate application with the
Division for a restoration of rent based upon the restoration of
services, if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied and the order of the District Rent Administrator be, and
the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
ADM. APPEAL DOCKET NO.: BC - 210161 RO
|