CE210285RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL
JAMAICA, NY 11433
------------------------------------x
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
CE210285RO
S. Lasher D/B/A Glen Co.,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
BC210152OR
PETITIONER
------------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 6, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition
for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on April 7,
1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 38-02 Glenwood Road, Apt. 1-C, Brooklyn,
N.Y., wherein the Administrator denied the owner's application for
rent restoration, based upon an inspection of the premises on
February 16, 1988, which disclosed that the bedroom and bathroom
doors weren't closing and locking properly; that the basin faucet
was leaking and further that the faucet washers were defective.
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 denied
the owner's application for rent restoration based upon a finding
that services were not fully restored.
On November 20, 1987, the owner filed a rent restoration
application alleging that those service items, which were the
subject of the rent reduction order dated December 16, 1986, were
restored.
CE210285RO
The tenant filed an answer to the owner's application alleging that
the repairs made by the owner were completed in an unworkmanlike
manner.
In this petition, the owner states, in substance, that it was not
notified of the inspection report and thus not afforded the
opportunity to repair these defective conditions prior to the
issuance of the Administrator's order. The petitioner cites ARL-
60350-Q wherein a proceeding was remanded to the Administrator on
the basis that an inspection request and report were not served on
the owner prior to the issuance of the Administrator's order to
provide the owner with an opportunity to comment on the inspection
report.
The owner also contended that the DHCR Compliance Bureau mailed a
letter, dated November 19, 1987, to the tenant, which stated in
substance, that in recognition of the tenant's statement that all
repairs were restored to her satisfaction, the proceedings were
being closed. The owner claims that this letter should be relied
on and that full rent restoration should have been granted.
The petition was served on the tenant on July 14, 1988, but the
tenant failed to file an answer to the petition.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
Administrative policy and precedent do not require that an owner in
this type of case involving decreased services within an individual
apartment be given a copy of the inspection results, and the Courts
have upheld this procedure (Empress Manor Apartments v. NYSDHCR,
538 N.Y.S. 2d 49, 147 A.D. 2d 642, February 21, 1989). The
Commissioner notes that the Administrative review opinion referred
to by petitioner concerning a rent control apartment was issued
shortly after the Division's takeover of the duties of the Rent
Commissioner, almost ten years ago. It is not and has not been the
Division's practice. In this regard, the Commissioner notes that
an inspection report is the work product of a DHCR staff member who
conducts an on-site inspection to determine questions of fact which
arise after joinder of issue in a proceeding alleging decreased
services. The inspector's work product is an impartial report or
finding, and is not a pleading or a probative submission by a party
to a proceeding which if not served for response would be a fatal
defect in denying due process.
Moreover, the owner had approximately twenty-six (26) months from
service of the tenant's complaint until the issuance of the
CE210285RO
Administrator's order to investigate the tenant's complaint and to
make necessary repairs in a workmanlike manner, but the owner
failed to do so.
Additionally, the Commissioner has considered and rejects the
owner's argument that greater weight should be given to the
Compliance Bureau letter, dated November 19, 1987, which evinced
an intent to close the case at bar.
The Commissioner finds that the Compliance Bureau letter was
predicated on a prior unsubstantiated telephone conversation
between the Compliance Bureau and the tenant and whatever the
conclusions arrived at as a result of that conversation, the
inspection results have greater weight and probity. The inspection
report showed clearly that the owner failed to fully restore all
services.
Accordingly, the owner was not denied due process and the
Administrator's order based on the inspection was correct.
The Division's records indicate that the owner filed another rent
restoration application which was granted. (CD210040OR).
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 Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
