ADM. APPEAL DOCKET NO. BH - 210191 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.:
BH - 210191 RO
:
D.R.O. DOCKET NO.:
AK - 210592 - S
SANDER HIRTH
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 4, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed an
Administrative Appeal against an order issued on July 7, 1987, by
the District Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica,
New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 621
Lefferts Avenue, Apartment B - 3, Brooklyn, N.Y.
The issue herein is whether the District Rent Administrator
properly reduced the rent of the subject apartment.
The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein,
reduced the maximum legal regulated rent for the subject apartment
to the level in effect prior to the last rent guideline increase,
which commenced before the effective date of the order.
This order was based upon an inspection held on April 7, 1987,
which showed that:
1- There is evidence of mice in the kitchen.
2- Bedroom window sash is stuck, does not open.
3- Bathroom walls and ceiling have peeling paint.
4- Livingroom wall outlet is defective.
5- Stove pilot light is defective.
6- Bathroom medicine cabinet door can not be closed.
7- Radiators throughout apartment have defective valve
handles.
ADM. APPEAL DOCKET NO. BH - 210191 RO
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted that it had not
received notice of the tenant's complaint; that some repairs were
completed; that others were not; that those that were not were
either in the process of being done or were deferred at the
tenant's request and further that the DHCR had never conducted an
inspection of the apartment.
In answer to the petition, the tenant acknowledges that the
owner completed all repair work on August 19, 1987. However, the
tenant also noted that the window repair was made in an
unworkmanlike manner.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The tenant initiated this proceeding by the filing of an
Individual Tenant Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services in
November, 1986.
The file clearly demonstrates that a Notice and Transmittal of
the Tenant's Complaint was mailed to the owner on December 17, 1986
and that separate inspections were conducted of the subject
apartment on March 23, 1987 and April 7, 1987.
Furthermore, the file contains the owner's detailed answer to
the tenant's complaint.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the owner's claims on
appeal that the DHCR failed to conduct an inspection of the subject
apartment and that he never received notice of the tenant's
complaint are without merit.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code,
a tenant may apply for a reduction of the legal regulated rent 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.
Based on a careful review of the file, the Commissioner finds
that the repair work found necessary by the DHCR inspector was not
completed by the owner at the time of the DHCR inspection before
the Administrator's order was issued. Moreover, according to the
tenant, the defective window had still not been repaired as of
November 1987.
The Commissioner further finds that the Administrator properly
based his determination on the entire record, including the results
ADM. APPEAL DOCKET NO. BH - 210191 RO
of the on-site physical inspection conducted on April 7, 1987 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.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the owner has offered
insufficient reason to disturb the District Rent Administrator's
determination.
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. The Division's records reveal that no such
rent restoration application has been filed. The parties are
advised that the rent reduction appealed herein remains in effect
until a rent restoration is ordered. The tenant may file an
overcharge complaint if the owner has collected rent in excess of
the amount ordered in the rent reduction order (AK 210592 S).
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
