ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BG 430274-RO, BG 430158-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 NOS.:
BG 430274-RO, BG 430158-RT
: D.R.O. DOCKET NO.
AJ 430075-B
1689 ASSOCIATES
1689 TENANTS ASSOCIATES,
PETITIONERS :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING OWNER'S AND TENANTS' PETITIONS FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND REMANDING THE PROCEEDING TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
On July 13, 1987, the above named petitioner filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order issued on June 26,
1987, by a District Rent Administrator at 92-31 Union Hall Street,
Jamaica, New York 11433, concerning the housing accommodation
known as 1689 First Avenue, New York, N.Y., wherein the District
Rent Administrator granted a rent reduction.
On July 27, 1987, the above named petitioners-tenants filed a
petition for administrative review against the same order.
The Commissioner has consolidated these petitions for
disposition because they involve common issues of law and fact.
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.
This proceeding was originally commenced on October 11,
1986, when thirteen tenants joined in filing a complaint alleging
that the owner had failed to properly provide and maintain a
number of building-wide services.
The tenants included with their complaint a 4-page inspection
report dated July 14, 1986 prepared at the request of the
Division's Enforcement Bureau which indicates several defective
conditions that the tenants asserted are very serious and obvious
Building Code or Fire Code violations. The tenants requested a
rent reduction, claiming that the owner has refused to comply with
directives of the Enforcement Bureau and makes repairs only when
subjected to the penalty of a rent reduction.
In answer to the complaint, the owner stated that there were
no violations against the building, that some of the tenants have
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BG 430274-RO, BG 430158-RT
refused access to the painters, that the front step has been
fixed, and that the "deadlock" that the tenants' want for the
front door is a violation that was removed by the Fire Department.
The tenants responded and asserted that the July 14, 1986
inspection report stated that the chute door in the basement
should be closed at all times but instead the owner removed the
door completely, that the owner has made no attempt to repair the
conditions cited in the inspection report despite assurances made
to the Enforcement Bureau, that tenants the owner claims to have
called never heard from him, that the front step was not repaired
before a tenant was injured in a fall, that the owner had
installed the illegal lock on the front door and the tenants
simply want a legal lock, and that the owner has repeatedly
provided DHCR with false information.
The Commissioner requested a physical inspection which took
place on January 15, 1987. The inspector reported that there was
no lock on the front door, that the outer door lock works, and
that the front door step was not defective.
The Administrator's order issued on June 26, 1987 ordered a
rent reduction of a guideline for stabilized tenants and $5.00 per
month for rent controlled tenants for "no lock on the building
entrance door."
The owner in his petition for administrative review contends
that the Rent Administrator had previously reduced the rent for
the absence of a lock on the entrance door of the subject building
in CDR 10,939, issued on November 29, 1985. Moreover, the owner
contends the lock was removed by the New York City Fire
Department. Thus, the Administrator's order should be revoked.
In response to the owner's petition, the tenants refer to
their own petition and assert that the current owner took
possession of the subject building on or about December 31, 1986
but is contesting actions that took place prior to that date.
Additionally, the tenants assert that the rent reduction order
solely addressed the issue of the entrance door lock and did not
include any of the other building-wide services which were
included in the 4-page inspection report attached to the
complaint. Included in that report were the following
observations by the inspector: outer front door saddle was loose
and sagging, the laundry exhaust system was excessively loud,
inner front vestibule wall tiles were missing, the building-wide
flooring needed repair, new mailboxes were not installed properly,
the basement door to the rear yard was off the hinge, the basement
was dirty and had broken windows, a wrought-iron fence between the
subject building and the adjacent building had fallen down, the
second floor public hall had two raised and cracked floor tiles,
the door to the garbage chute in the basement did not close and
there was an accumulation of garbage, the second and third floor
public hall flooring needed repair, the stairway between the 4th
and 5th floor needed repair to one step, the bulkhead window had a
missing pane, the fifth floor public hall ceiling was discolored,
the chimney above the roof needed repair, the roof needed to be
resurfaced, and there was an accumulation of rubbish on the roof.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BG 430274-RO, BG 430158-RT
Lastly, the tenants assert that the instant proceeding is not
a duplicate of any prior proceeding but the Administrator's order
should be modified to include the many other defective conditions
cited in the Enforcement Bureau's inspection report.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's and
tenants' petition should be granted and the proceeding should be
remanded for further investigation of the tenants' complaints by
the Administrator.
The Commissioner notes that the Administrator in Docket No.
U-000852-B (CDR 10,939) granted a rent reduction for, among other
things, a defective exterior door lock. Since the rent had
already been reduced for this condition and that rent reduction
was still in effect, it was improper for the Administrator to
issue another order based on the same condition. Accordingly, the
rent reduction order must be revoked.
The tenants, however, alleged in their complaint numerous
other serious and potentially dangerous conditions that had been
reported by a DHCR inspector but were never investigated by the
Administrator for the purpose of determining whether a rent
reduction was warranted. The proceeding is, therefore being
remanded for appropriate consideration of the other items cited
in the complaint and, if appropriate, issuance of another rent
reduction order with an effective date of December 1, 1986 for
stabilized tenants and the first rent payment subsequent to June
26, 1987 for rent controlled tenants.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction
Regulations and the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this owner's petition for administrative review
be granted; and the Rent Administrator's order be and the same
hereby is revoked; and the tenants' petition be and the same
hereby is granted to the extent of remanding this proceeding to
the Rent Administrator for further processing to determine whether
the owner has failed to maintain building-wide services for which
a rent reduction is warranted.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BG 430274-RO, BG 430158-RT
|
