CA430190RO
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.: CA430190RO
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
J & S PROPERTIES DOCKET NO.: AH430063B
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 28, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
December 24, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodation known as 14 Avenue A, New York, NY wherein
the Administrator directed restoration of services and further
ordered a reduction of the maximum legal rents but without a
corresponding reduction in the stabilized rent of the only
stabilized tenant in Apt. 10.
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.
This proceeding was commenced by the filing of a complaint of
reduction in services on August 27, 1986. An inspection conducted
by a Division employee on November 2, 1987 confirmed some of the
complained of conditions resulting in the December 24, 1987 order.
In the PAR, the owner contends that the Administrator failed
to consider the owner's answer to the tenant's complaint; that the
compliance division issued an order under Docket No. ZLCS-000320-B
on May 19, 1986 determining that the same conditions complained of
herein had already been corrected at the time the complaint was
filed; that the owner's attorney was not served with the order
despite having filed a notice of appearance; that the agency failed
to comply with established precedent in that notice of the
complaint, the inspection, and the inspection results were not
served on the owner giving the owner an opportunity to cure; and
that the conditions are of a minor nature and should not give rise
to a rent reduction.
CA430190RO
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
denied.
The order hereunder review directed restoration of the
following services: 1. superintendent not available at time of
inspection; 2. dirty carpeting first to fifth floors; and, 3.
missing light bulb. This resulted in a rent reduction of $3.25 per
month for the rent controlled tenants but no corresponding decrease
for the rent stabilized tenants who joined in the complaint.
The conditions addressed in the order under Docket No. ZLCS-
000320-B issued on May 19, 1986, cited by the owner in support of
its petition, are not the same conditions as those covered in the
order hereunder review. The owner's correspondence of May 18,
1987, which it claims was not considered by the Administrator in
this case, relates to the services addressed in the May 19, 1986
order and is irrelevant to the matter herein.
The record reflects that the owner, the petitioner herein, was
served through its attorneys with a copy of the tenants' complaint
and supplied with answer forms on May 26, 1987. The Administrative
record does not contain an answer to the complaint. Despite
service of the complaint on the owner through its attorneys, and
the notice of appearance filed on letterhead stationery of the
attorney's office the order was served only on the owner at the
owner's address. This is harmless error as the order was received
and this PAR was timely filed.
The Commissioner finds that the owner is not entitled to
receive notice of DHCR inspections prior to the issuance of a
finding of fact where, as here, the inspection merely substantiated
certain allegations in the tenants' complaint. In addition, the
failure to afford an owner an opportunity to receive the results of
inspection prior to a determination is not a denial of due process
where, as here, the inspection report confirms some of the
allegations in the complaint and the owner was fully informed of
these allegations but chose not to contest them.
As for the owner's allegation that the conditions are too
minor to warrant a rent reduction, the Commissioner finds that
Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations authorizes a
rent reduction in an amount which the Commissioner finds to be the
reduction in the rental value of the housing accommodation because
of the decrease in essential services. The $3.25 per month rent
reduction accurately reflects the decreased services cited in the
inspector's report.
CA430190RO
The Division's records reveal that the owner's rent
restoration application was granted on November 1, 1988
(CB420059OR).
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, the City Rent Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it
is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is denied
and the Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby is
affirmed.
ISSUED:
___________________
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|