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.: BJ-430013-RO
: D.R.O.
: DOCKET NO.:BC-420076-S
LILLIAN SERIL, :
: TENANT: MIRIAM LANGER
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 13, 1987, the above-named owner filed a Petition
for Administrative Review of an order issued on October 1, 1987 by
a Rent Administrator concerning the rent controlled housing
accommodation known as 225 West 86th Street, Apartment 101, New
York, NY, wherein a rent reduction was ordered based on a finding
of a reduction 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 issues raised by the petition for administrative
review.
This proceeding was commenced on March 3, 1987 by the tenant
filing a complaint for a decrease in services, alleging a complete
lack of heat and hot water. The record also discloses that by
letter dated February 20, 1987 the tenant provided information on
painting and plastering deficiencies, further referencing another
services proceeding under docket number (AF-420635-S).
On March 20, 1987, the DHCR sent the owner a copy of the
subject complaint with instructions to file an answer. The
February 20, 1987 letter was also transmitted with the subject
complaint. The owner replied that painting repairs were being
arranged; that the subject complaint was a duplicate of the
services complaint under Docket No. AF-420635-S; and that the
subject complaint should either be dismissed or consolidated with
the other complaint.
DOCKET NUMBER: BJ-430013-RO
On July 16, 1987, a Division staff member conducted an on-site
inspection and reported, among other things, that the hot water
temperature was 100 degrees Farenheit.
In the order issued on October 1, 1987, the Administrator
ordered a 7 1/2% reduction of the maximum legal rent based on the
inspector's finding of inadequate hot water. The administrator
further noted that the issue of plastering and painting was
considered in an earlier order of rent reduction, issued April 27,
1987.
In the petition, the owner seeks reversal of the order and
claims that the tenant's complaint was a 'painting complaint' and
did not raise the issue of hot water, and the owner was therefore
given no notification of the hot water claim nor the an opportunity
to comment on it, further asserting that there was plenty of hot
water at the premises. Lastly, the owner states that the Division
erred by failing to supply her with a copy of the inspection report
and afford her an opportunity to comment on it.
In answer to the petition, the tenant essentially urges
affirmation of the order.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition
should be denied.
Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations provides
that an owner's failure to maintain services may result in an order
of decrease in maximum rent which the Administrator, in his
discretion, may determine.
Careful review of the evidence of record in the instant case
discloses that the owner was sent a copy of the subject complaint
on March 20, 1987. Despite the DHCR's inclusion, with transmittal
of the subject complaint, of other papers from the tenant which
referenced another Services proceeding (i.e., AF-420635-S), the
subject complaint categorically raised the issues of heat and hot
water. The Commissioner therefore finds that the owner was given
clear notification of the hot water issue.
A physical inspection of the subject premises conducted on
July 16, 1987 revealed that the temperature of the hot water was
100 degrees Farenheit, which constituted inadequate hot water and
a decrease in services. Accordingly, the Administrator correctly
ordered a reduction in the maximum rent based on the inspectorial
findings.
-2-
DOCKET NUMBER: BJ-430013-RO
The contention that a copy of the inspection report should
have been forwarded to the owner for comment is rejected since,
pursuant to Division policy and practice, there is no requirement
that this be done.
The Division's records reveal that the owner's rent
restoration application was granted on January 15, 1991
(EG-420056-OR).
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction
Regulations for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
-3-
|