ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI110127RO
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 NO.:
BI110127RO
:
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
AG110525S
ANURAG SUPERMARKET CORP.
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 8, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed
a petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
August 3, 1987 by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as Apartment 3G, 162-05 89th Avenue, Jamaica,
N.Y., wherein the Administrator reduced the rent upon a finding of
a decrease in services.
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 commenced on July 26, 1986 by the filing
of a complaint by the tenant alleging a decrease in apartment
services.
On October 14, 1986 a Division employee conducted an
inspection of the apartment which confirmed the complained of
conditions and resulted in the August 3, 1987 order reducing the
rent.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI110127RO
In the PAR, the owner contends that when served with a copy of
the tenant's complaint the owner responded to the agency and asked
for a clarification of what work needed to be done and that, in
essence, it had insufficient notice of the complained of
conditions.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
be denied.
The record reveals that the tenant's complaint form filed with
this agency was accompanied by an attachment. The attachment is a
form used by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development
- Office of Rent and Housing Maintenance and is captioned,
Certificate of Violation Correction. The form states that the
owner certifies that all the work necessary to remove all the
violations in the subject apartment has been completed. The
conditions certified by the owner to have been corrected are listed
by the owner on that form and included painting and plastering the
bathroom and kitchen, repairs to the bathroom floor tiles and
kitchen windows, and eradication of roach and mice infestation.
On the complaint form itself the tenant checked the box
indicating that she is applying for a rent reduction because of the
owner's failure to maintain services as specified therein. On the
reverse side of the complaint form the tenant refers to the
attached certificate signed by the owner and states that the owner
has not done the work contained in the certification. The tenant's
complaint also states, "I have filed with DHCR owner's failure to
renew lease forms docket # AF 110172 RV."
When served with the tenant's complaint the owner responded on
September 3, 1986 that he did not understand what the tenant wants,
that the papers attached to her complaint are the ones which the
owner mailed to the tenant for "double no access to the Code
Enforcement Inspectors," that he needs clarification of what kind
of repairs the tenant needs, and that the tenant has been mailed a
two year lease to sign.
Inasmuch as the owner's answer to the tenant's complaint
addresses that portion of the complaint which refers to the failure
to renew the tenant's lease, the Commissioner finds that the owner
was sufficiently notified and should have been aware of the
substance of the tenant's complaint which was that the owner had
not done the work contained in the certification attached to the
complaint. Although the owner's certification indicated that the
violations were corrected in February and April, 1986, the
Division's inspection conducted on October 14, 1986 found that
plaster repair and painting had been done in an unworkmanlike
manner, the bathroom floor tiles were cracked and broken in
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI110127RO
numerous places, new windows were installed but the caulking is
unworkmanlike, and there was vermin infestation. The barest
inquiry would have made this apparent to the owner. It, therefore,
cannot be concluded that the complaint did not give the owner
sufficient notice of the complained of conditions.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator
properly based his determination on the entire record, including
the October 14, 1986 physical inspection; and that pursuant to
Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, a rent reduction is warranted based
on the finding that the owner has failed to maintain required
services.
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 Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
