DHCR Decisions
DOCKET NUMBER: BG 610213-RO & BG 610214-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 REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NOS.: BG 610213-RO &
: BG 610214-RO
1796 HOLDING CORP. DRO DOCKET NOS.: AK 610624-S &
BY DAVID GOLD AK 610659-S
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION BG-61-213-RO AND GRANTING
PETITION BG-610214-RO
On July 20, 1987, the above-named petitioner filed two separate petitions
for Administrative Review, consolidated herein, against two orders issued
on June 19, 1987 and on July 3, 1987 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31
Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodation
known as 1796 Grand Concourse, Apartment A4, Bronx, New York, wherein the
Administrator directed the restoration of service, further finding that a
rent reduction based thereon was warranted.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record concerning the issues
raised in the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on November 14, 1986 by the tenant (Samuel
Santiago) filing a complaint for a diminution of services under Docket No.
AK-610624-S, alleging the following conditions in the subject apartment:
1) a defective light ("goes off often");
2) defective walls in the bathroom;
3) hole in the wall between the bathroom and kitchen;
4) stove needs repair ("cannot use oven"); and
5) apartment needs painting.
A duplicate complaint was separately processed by the Division under
Docket No. AK-610659-S.
On December 23, 1986 and on January 6, 1987, a Division staff member
conducted a physical inspection to investigate the tenant's claims under
Docket No. AK 610624-S and reported in pertinent part that:
1. the kitchen,bedrooms and apartment hallway are in need of
scraping and painting;
2. bathroom wall around bathtub needs plaster and tiles;
3. hole between the kitchen and bathroom was not completely
repaired;
4. the oven door of the stove does not close properly; and
DOCKET NUMBER: BG 610213-RO & BG 610214-RO
5. kitchen wall was repaired in an unworkmanlike manner.
On January 5, 1987, the owner responded to the tenant's allegations by
advising, in pertinent part, that all of the subject repairs had been
completed; that plastering work had been performed; the the springs in the
tenant's oven door had been repaired; and that the apartment was in the
process of being painted.
On January 20, 1987, the Division conducted another physical inspection
under Docket No. AK-610659-S. The inspector reported that:
1. the bathroom walls had been repaired;
2. the hole between the kitchen and bathroom had been
repaired;
3. the oven door does not close properly; and
4. apartment is in the process of being painted; 75%
complete.
In the order issued on June 19, 1987, under Docket No. AK-610659-S, the
Administrator reduced the tenant's rent to the level in effect prior to
the last rent guidelines increase based on the defective oven door and on
the fact that the apartment was not completely painted.
In the order issued on July 3, 1987 under Docket No. AK 610624-S, another
rent reduction was ordered based on the five above-mentioned grounds cited
in the December 23, 1986 and January 6, 1987 inspection reports.
In petition BG-610213-RO, against the June 19, 1987 order, the owner
states in pertinent part that all repairs were expeditiously made in
December, 1986; that despite prior repair to the stove, on January 27,
1987, the owner went further and delivered a reconditioned stove to the
tenant's apartment (invoice submitted) and the tenant has indicated his
satisfaction with the new stove; that at the same time (January 27, 1987),
the owner caused the entire apartment to be plastered and painted once
again, and the tenant had also expressed satisfaction with such work.
Based on this work, the owner questions whether the inspector actually
visited the premises. Lastly, the owner requests consolidation of both
proceedings.
In the petition under BG-610214-RO, against the July 3, 1987 order, the
owner reiterates the aforementioned arguments.
The tenant did not submit an answer to either petition.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition under BG-610213-RO
should be denied, and that the petition under BG 610214-RO should be
granted.
Pursuant to section 2523.4(s) of the Rent Stabilization Code,
DOCKET NUMBER: BG 610213-RO & BG 610214-RO
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.
Concerning the owner's request for consolidation of the two proceedings,
given that the Division inadvertently processed duplicate complaints under
two separate docket numbers, the Commissioner finds that the June 19, 1987
order, which was based on a more current inspection of the subject
premises, should, supersede the July 3, 1987 order, and that the July 3,
1987 order should be dismissed.
Review of the record in the instant case reveals that the Administrator
based his June 19, 1987 determination on the entire record, including the
results of the January 20, 1987 inspection which disclosed that the oven
door does not properly close, and that the apartment is in need of
painting. Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator
correctly found that the owner had failed to maintain services and was
mandated to reduce the tenant's rent.
The owner's assertions that he installed a reconditioned stove, and
completed plastering and painting of the subject apartment on January 27,
1987, were not raised in the proceeding below, despite the owner's
opportunity to do so for over four months prior to the issuance of the
order appealed from. Such novel assertions may not be considered for the
first time in this appeal proceeding.
As to the owner's assertion that the tenant had expressed satisfaction
with the subject repairs, the record in the proceeding under Docket No.
AK-610624-S contradicts such assertion as the Division records reflect
that the tenant filed a "Tenant Affirmation of Non-Compliance" with the
Division's Compliance Bureau on July 14, 1987, advising that the owner had
only completed half of the painting of the subject apartment.
Based on the foregoing, the commissioner finds that the Administrator's
order under AK-610659-S was corrected and should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that Petition BG-610224-RO be, and the same hereby is, granted,
and that the Administrator's July 3, 1987 order be, and the same hereby is
revoked, and it is further
ORDERED, that Petition BG-610213-RO be, and the same hereby is denied, and
that the Administrator's June 19, 1987 order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
DOCKET NUMBER: BG 610213-RO & BG 610214-RO
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
|
|