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.: CB110216R0
J.H. Winfrey/
Visutton Management Corp., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BJ110304S
PETITIONER PREMISES: Apt. 7X
99-05 63rd.Dr.
Rego Park, NY
-----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on February 3, 1988 concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by this administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on October 5, 1987 by a tenant filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain various
services in the subject apartment.
On November 12, 1987, a copy of the complaint was transmitted to the
owner with notice to the effect that it had 21 days to interpose an
answer.
By letter received on November 20, 1987, the owner requested a
thirty (30) day extension to respond, stating that "if we do not
hear from your agency to the contrary, we will assume such request
has been granted."
On December 18, 1987, the owner requested another extension to
interpose an answer until March 31, 1988, stating that "if we do not
hear from you we must assume it has been accepted."
On January 7, 1988, DHCR requested the owner to submit more specific
information including "schedules for commencing and completing the
work."
CB110216RO
The owner failed to respond to DHCR's request
On December 7, 1987, a physical inspection of the apartment was
conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of
defective conditions.
By order dated February 3, 1988, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and further ordered a reduction of the
stabilized rent based on these inspection results:
1. The tiles in the bathroom are missing, broken and need to be
grouted.
2. The hot water faucet in the bathroom is leaking.
3. The intercom does not work.
4. The tiles in the bedroom and the living room are broken.
5. The toilet is defective; the flushometer leaks.
6. The apartment entrance door is defective; two steps are
loose, a hazardous condition.
7. The stove is not working properly; one pilot does not
function.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends that
it made two extension requests in the proceeding below, which were
neither granted nor denied by DHCR. Its first request was for a
thirty (30) day extension; its second request was to interpose an
answer until March 31, 1988. In both instances, the owner stated
that if it did not hear from DHCR it assumed that the extension was
granted.
On March 31, 1988, a copy of the owner's petition was mailed to the
tenant.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
The Administrator's determination was properly based on a timely
inspection which found defective conditions in the subject
apartment, warranting a rent reduction. Accordingly, the
Administrator's determination was proper and is hereby sustained.
In this case, the complaint was transmitted to the owner on November
12, 1987 with notice to the effect that it had 21 days to interpose
an answer. After requesting a thirty (30) day extension, the owner
again requested an extension to file an answer until March 31, 1988.
In both requests, the owner stated that if it did not hear from DHCR
it assumed that the extension was granted. Neither denying nor
granting the request for an extension, DHCR inquired on January 7,
1988 from the owner information on "schedules for commencing and
completing the work." The owner failed to respond to DHCR's
inquiry. The Commissioner notes that the Division is not required to
CB110216RO
respond in writing to this extension request and in the absence of
a clear, written grant, the owner should not assume that such a
request could be granted.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator was not
in error in refusing a second application to extend the owner's time
to answer more than four (4) months after the answer was due.
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted
by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this
Order and Opinion.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
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 A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
