CA210139RO
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.: CA210139RO
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BF210083B
PAUL GERTZ
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 26, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on December
27, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 533 Washington Ave, Brooklyn, New York,
wherein the Administrator determined that there had been a
reduction of building-wide services, directed the restoration of
services and ordered a reduction of the stabilized legal rent of
the tenant that filed the complaint.
Although the tenant complained of both building-wide and
individual apartment services, the Administrator properly limited
these proceedings to consideration of the building defects. The
challenged order reduced the tenant's rent based on the results of
an inspection conducted on October 13, 1987. The inspector reported
that public hall areas had been painted but in an unworkmanlike
manner, that the lights in the front of the building were not
operative, and that the sidewalk in front of the building was
broken and falling apart.
The owner's appeal does not dispute the conditions reported by
the inspector. Rather, the owner reiterates assertions below that
the repairs were adequate or that the owner was not responsible for
certain items, argues that some of the conditions found amounted to
minor repairs addressed in the course of periodic maintenance and
repairs, and contends that he was not given adequate notice of all
the conditions found and that the complaining tenant was not
entitled to the rent reduction. A copy of the owner's appeal was
served on the tenant on February 22, 1988.
CA210139RO
The owner's arguments do not have merit.
The owner's contention that hall areas were painted in a
workmanlike manner, that paint and plaster defects were limited to
isolated areas, that lights in front of the building were working,
and that the sidewalk conditions were minor, are belied by the
record. The inspector's report reflects that a substantial part of
the hall was not painted in a workmanlike manner, and that certain
areas were not painted. The inspector also observed that lights
outside the building did not work, and that the sidewalk in front
of the building was cracked and falling apart.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly relied
on the observations of the DHCR inspector, who was not a party to
the proceeding, and not an adversary to the owner. His impartial
observations, that the conditions observed were serious and
extensive, were properly placed in the record for the
Administrator's consideration and were entitled to, and afforded,
great weight.
There is no merit to the owner's argument that he did not have
adequate notice from the tenant of the conditions found. The owner
was afforded his due process right to notice of the conditions by
service of the tenant's complaint by the Administrator.
The record also belies the owner's assertion that the
conditions found were isolated occurrences addressed in the normal
course of maintenance. In fact, the conditions found reflected
that maintenance and repairs provided at the subject premises were
inadequate.
The owner's suggestion that the tenant was not entitled to
rent reductions since he lived in the basement apartment, and
because the tenant had previously been the building superintendent
responsible for the services, is similarly without merit. It is
not disputed that the complainant was a legal tenant when he filed
the complaint. The fact that the tenant's apartment was in the
basement also did not diminish the tenant's right to a rent
reduction arising from the owner's failure to maintain one or more
public area services. The tenant had the right of access to these
public areas for, among other things, to obtain his mail.
DHCR records do not show that the complaining tenant currently
resides in the subject apartment. Accordingly, a copy of the
instant order shall also be addressed to "Occupant", in addition to
the named tenant.
CA210139RO
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be denied and that the
Administrator's order be affirmed.
ISSUED:
___________________
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|
