CA630293RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
----------------------------------x
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
CA630293RO
PASQUALE PERRETTA/
P & P LORILLARD REALTY CO., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
BE630024B
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW,
IN PART
On December 30, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
November 25, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodation known as 2505 Lorillard Place, Bronx,
New York, wherein the Administrator determined the tenants'
complaints of reductions of building-wide services, directed the
restoration of services and ordered reductions of the maximum legal
rents for rent controlled tenants. Based on the evidence, the
Administrator determined that rent reductions for the rent
stabilized tenants were not warranted.
The Administrator found that the services were reduced based on the
results of an inspection conducted on July 10, 1987. The inspector
reported low water pressure in three out of four apartments
sampled, that the fifth floor hallway lighting was inadequate, that
the basement floor was cracked and that window screens were missing
in the public area windows. Other conditions cited in the com-
plaint were not confirmed. The Examiner's progress sheet notes
also reflected that the tenants' complaint of lack of heat was not
investigated, because it was not the heating season.
In the instant appeal, the owner reiterates assertions below that
the tenants signed the complaint because they were misled to
believe that they were objecting to a recent MCI rent increase
order and that at least one signature was forged. In support, the
owner submits the signed statements of ten tenants, to the effect
that their signatures to the complaint were solicited under false
pretenses.
CA630293RO
The owner also objects on due process grounds in that the tenants
had allegedly not complained of low water pressure, inadequate
lighting, and missing public area window screens. The owner
acknowledges that the tenants' complaint referred to a defective
basement floor, but argues that due process would have required
that the owner be notified of the inspection results.
Copies of the petition were served on the tenants on March 7, 1988.
A substantial number of tenants filed various answers, jointly or
severally, as more fully set forth below.
A number of tenants interposed a joint response acknowledging that
they did not register complaints regarding the screens, low water
pressure or inadequate lighting. These tenants confirmed that the
light bulb in the fifth floor corridor had to be replaced fre-
quently, possibly due to a defective light fixture, and that the
uneven pitch of the basement floor created a tripping hazard to
tenants who availed themselves of the laundry and trash disposal
facilities.
Two tenants responded, among other things, denying that there was
any attempt to mislead or coerce anyone or that any signatures were
forged.
Some tenants filed separate identical responses, to the effect that
the conditions found below had not been corrected. Other tenants
reiterated complaints of lack of heat and hot water, and that many
building wide services remained inadequate, notwithstanding the
Administrator's dismissal of the complaints.
An examination of the documents below shows that the enumerated
complaints submitted by the tenants did not include missing public
area window screens, inadequate water pressure or inadequate
lighting. These three items were cited only in written comments
referring to the complaint from the rent stabilized tenant of
Apartment 6-F. As no rent controlled tenants cited these items,
the rent controlled tenants were not entitled to the specific
monetary monthly rent reductions allocated to these items. The
owner is correct that there was no basis in the record to consider
public area window screens a base date service the owner is re-
quired to provide.
CA630293RO
Although the owner contends, below and on appeal, that the basement
floor was properly repaired in a manner that did not pose any
hazard, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly
determined that the condition reported by the inspector, a defec-
tive cracked floor, belied the owner's claim of adequate repairs,
and warranted the rent reductions granted to the rent controlled
tenants.
The owner's contention that he was denied due process because he
was not served a copy of the inspector's report is also without
merit. Due process does not require the Administrator to serve the
inspection report on the owner. The owner was afforded due process
rights to notice by service of the tenants' complaint. Empress
Manor Apartments v. DHCR, 538 N.Y.S. 2d 49, 147 A.D. 2d 642 (2nd
Dept., 1989).
The owner's allegations against some tenants, of attempts to mis-
lead or coerce, and of possible forgery, notwithstanding, the
record below and on appeal reveals that the overwhelming number of
tenants have not retracted their signatures from the complaint. The
owner's assertions below and on appeal are not sufficient to estab-
lish the charges.
Rent arrears may be due the owner from rent controlled tenants as
a result of the fact that rent reductions of $5.00 per month that
were granted are hereby revoked for:
Low water pressure $ 1.00
Inadequate lighting in the fifth
floor corridor and, 2.00
Missing public area window screens 2.00
($ 5.00)
====
The rent arrears may be paid in equal monthly installments over the
course of the next twelve (12) months.
The Commissioner also notes that the tenants' answers to the
owner's administrative appeal are not the proper vehicle to dispute
and object to the Administrator's determination dismissing the
remaining complaints. In order to do this, the tenants would have
to have filed a timely PAR.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, the City Rent Control Law, and the Rent
CA630293RO
Stabilization Law and Code, it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted, in
part, to the extent of amending the Administrator's order to revoke
rent reductions granted based on findings of inadequate water
pressure, inadequate lighting, and missing public area window
screens. The Administrator's findings regarding the defective
basement floor are affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
