CB610193RO
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.: CB610193RO
3510 BAINBRIDGE AVENUE COMPANY RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
c/o TOPOROVSKY & SONS REALTY COMPANY DOCKET NO.: BE610747S
PETITIONER
-----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 25, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
February 4, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 3510 Bainbridge Avenue, Bronx, New York,
Apt. #4F, wherein the Administrator determined that a reduction in
rent was warranted based upon a reduction in services.
The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of 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.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced
the rent of the subject apartment.
On May 19, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the
owner failed to provide sundry services.
The owner filed an answer to the complaint, on July 31, 1987,
alleging that all repairs have either been corrected or are
currently in the process of being resolved.
CB610193RO
A DHCR inspection conducted on December 24, 1987, revealed that:
1. Windows in the two (2) living rooms, two (2) bedrooms,
two (2) kitchens and bathroom have no screens.
2. Sink in bathroom is loose.
3. Toilet is defective, flushometer has low, inadequate water
pressure.
4. Ceiling and walls in the living room are peeling paint and
plaster.
5. Basement door lock is not secured.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
all repairs specified in the tenant's complaint were corrected and
that the tenant failed to inform it of any continuing service
deficiencies.
The petition was served on the tenant on March 25, 1988.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrator appeal should
be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 (a) of the Rent Stabilization code, a
tenant may apply to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR) for 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 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 has also considered and rejects the petitioner's
claim on appeal that the required repairs were made prior to the
issuance of the Rent Administrator's order.
A copy of the tenant's complaint was mailed to the owner on July
10, 1987 and the Rent Administrator's order was issued on February
4, 1988.
It is apparent that the owner had approximately seven (7) months to
attend to the complained-of conditions, but had failed to do so
prior to the issuance of the Rent Administrator's order.
The inspector's report showed that as of December 24, 1987, the
owner failed to correct all of the service deficiencies specified
in the tenant's complaint.
CB610193RO
The Commissioner notes that in support of its petition, the owner
submitted a sworn statement from Mehmet Milus, the superintendent,
stating that every time he attempted to install window screens, the
tenant would postpone and delay the installation.
The Commissioner also notes that the inspection report revealed
that a number of service deficiencies had previously been corrected
by the owner and it is apparent, therefore, that the owner had
adequate opportunity to install the window screens.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the owner has offered
insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's
determination.
The Commissioner finds, that the Administrator properly based his
determination on the entire record, including the results of the
on-site physical inspection conducted on December 24, 1987, and
that pursuant to Section 2523.4 (a) of the Code, the Administrator
was mandated to reduce the rent upon determining that the owner had
failed to maintain services.
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.
The owner's alleged restoration of services subsequent to the rent
reduction order is being considered in a seperate proceeding which
if confirmed will result in restoration of the rent.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law & Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be,and the same hereby is, denied, and
the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
|
