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
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
DOCKET NO. BL410313RO
Joseph Pollack c/o DISTRICT RENT
Pearce Urstadt Mayer & Greer ADMINISTRAOTR'S DOCKET
NO. LC0003314-S
PETITIONER
--------------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 22, 1987, the above-named landlord timely filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on January
26, 1987 by a District Rent Administrator concerning the housing
accommodation known as Apartment 4-F, 251 West 89th Street, New
York, New York, wherein rent was reduced due to a diminution of
service.
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 review.
On March 21, 1985 the subject tenants filed a "Tenant's Statement
of Violations" based on the owner's alleged failure to maintain
services alleging, among other things, that painting and repairs
in the subject apartment and building were done in an
unworkmanlike manner.
On April 16, 1985 the landlord interposed an answer to the
tenant's complaint wherein it alleged, among other things, that
building services were being maintained.
On June 26, 1986 a physical inspection of the subject premises
was carried out by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR). The inspector, in his report, noted that the second and
third floor halls needed painting, and that the subject apartment
had peeling paint and plaster.
On January 26, 1987 the District Rent Administrator issued the
order her under review finding that a diminution of services had
occurred and reducing the tenant's rent by 10% of the maximum
Docket No. BL410313RO - 2-
legal rent plus $4.00 per month, effective on the first rent
payment day following the issuance date of the order.
The landlord's petition asserts that it did not receive a copy of
the Administrator's order from D.H.C.R. because the rent agency
mailed the order to the landlord's old address, and not to its
current address. Furthermore, the landlord alleges that certain
repairs to the subject apartment were completed, but the subject
tenant would not permit the entire apartment to be painted. The
landlord further states that repairs in the public halls must
have been in progress at the time of the filing of the subject
tenants' complaint, and that such repairs have long since been
completed. Attached to the landlord's petition is a copy of a
paid bill for $324.75, dated September 29, 1986, for certain
repairs done in the subject apartment by an independent
contractor.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the landlord's petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that according to DHCR's records (the
subject apartment's April 1, 1986 registration statement) the
landlord's address that is listed is different from the address
to which the Administrator mailed the order. As the rent agency
did not mail the Administrator's order to the landlord's address
that was listed in DHCR's record, and as the landlord credibly
asserts non-receipt, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
landlord's petition should be deemed to be timely filed.
The issue raised in the petition regarding the alleged refusal of
the tenant to permit the painters to complete all repairs was not
raised in the proceeding before the District Rent Administrator.
Accordingly, it is outside the scope of the Commissioner's review
and will not be considered in this administrative appeal. Even
if this issue were properly before the Commissioner, it is noted
that the landlord's assertion of the tenant's refusal to allow
all repairs to be completed is unsubstantiated in any event.
As the inspector noted, in his report, that the public halls
required painting, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
Administrator's finding pertaining to the public halls should not
be disturbed. The Commissioner finds that the landlord does not
substantiate its assertion concerning the public halls with any
probative evidence, but only makes the bare assertion that the
halls have been repaired. Accordingly, the Commissioner is of
the opinion that the Administrator's order should be affirmed.
Docket No. BL410313RO - 3 -
Therefore, in accordance with the City Rent and Rehabilitation
Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulation, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|
