ADM. APPEAL DOCKET NOS. BH-410058 RO & BH-410025 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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.:
BH-410058 RO
BH-410025 RT
:
DRO DOCKET NO.:
BC 410103-S
MT. SINAI HOSPITAL
AND
DEWITT ELLIOTT THOMPSON
PETITIONERS :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 5, 1987 and August 7, 1987, the above-named
petitioner-owner and petitioner-tenant respectively filed
Administrative Appeals against an order issued on July 1, 1987,
by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New
York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 52 East 97th
Street, Apartment No. 1-I, New York, N.Y.
The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate the
owner's and tenant's administrative appeals for determination
under this Order and Opinion.
The issue herein is whether the District Rent Administrator
properly determined the tenant's complaint of a reduction in
services.
The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein,
found that a diminution of services had occurred and reduced the
tenant's rent to the level in effect prior to the last rent
guideline increase, which commenced before the effective date of
the rent reduction. The findings were based on the results of an
inspection held on May 19, 1987.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner alleged, inter alia, that
the tenant has, in part, refused access to the apartment to make
repairs; that the question of repairs and the tenant's right to
occupy the apartment was before the Civil Court of the City of
New York (Index # H.P. 582/87); that resolution of the repair
issue was the subject of a "court ordered" stipulation; that the
only reason all repairs were not completed in a workmanlike
manner is that the tenant has engaged in dilatory legal maneuvers
ADM. APPEAL DOCKET NOS. BH-410058 RO & BH-410025 RT
motivated by a desire to forestall execution on an outstanding
warrant of eviction and that the DHCR on April 27, 1987, (Docket
No. BA-510183) already denied the tenant's request for a service
rent reduction, based on another inspection held on April 7,
1987, which revealed that services are adequate.
The tenant, on appeal, alleged that the courts have not
allowed enough of a rent abatement and reiterated his service
complaints.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of
record the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative
appeals 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 notes that the owner's allegation, that the
tenant denied access to the apartment for the purpose of repairs
is unsubstantiated by any evidence in the record, such as
appointment letters sent to the tenant by regular and certified
mail and affidavits of workmen who were denied access after
appointments were arranged. Moreover, the inspection report
revealed that some repairs were actually made for which access
must have been obtained.
The owner's claim that the repair question has already been
resolved in Civil Court is without merit because the findings
contained in the DHCR inspection report of May 22, 1987 belie the
owner's claim of substantial service restoration.
Moreover, the owner's assertion that the DHCR inspection
held on April 27, 1987 determined that services are adequate is
also without merit.
A review of that inspection report clearly showed that the
only determination made was that heat and hot water services were
adequate.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the District Rent
Administrator properly determined that the owner had failed to
maintain services based on the evidence of record, including the
results of a physical inspection of the subject premises held on
May 19, 1987 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
ADM. APPEAL DOCKET NOS. BH-410058 RO & BH-410025 RT
Division for a restoration of rent based upon the restoration of
services, if the facts so warrant.
The Commissioner has reviewed the tenant's assertions on
appeal and finds them to be without substance.
All that is demonstrated by the tenant's appeal is a
restatement of his service complaints: the very complaints that
were the subject of the District Rent Administrator's service
reduction order of July 1, 1987.
Additionally, it is clear that the DHCR is without
jurisdiction to alter orders of the Civil Court of the City of
New York.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that the petitions under Docket Nos. BH-410058 RO
and BH-410025 RT be, and the same hereby are denied and that the
District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
