CB110186RO
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.: CB110186RO
Hen Yam Lee Corp.
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BG110200S
PETITIONER
------------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 26, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
February 1, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 36-07 Steinway Street, Long Island City,
N.Y., Apt.1-D, 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 Apartment 1-D, based upon a reduction in services.
On July 9, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the
owner failed to paint the subject apartment and failed to furnish
various essential services, as required by law.
The owner filed an answer to the complaint on September 15, 1987,
alleging that the front door has been repaired many times and is in
operational condition and that all other requested repairs have
CB110186RO
been addressed and subsequently corrected.
A DHCR inspection conducted on November 23, 1987, revealed that:
1. Kitchen ceiling is cracked and about to fall.
2. Bedroom ceiling is discolored, blistered, and peeling
paint and plaster.
3. Livingroom walls are cracked.
4. Master bedroom ceiling and walls are cracked.
5. Walls in second bedroom are cracked.
6. Front apartment door has a defective lock, loose hinges,
a rotted frame, and a defective peephole device.
7. Second bedroom window has sashes that do not operate, a
defective lock, and a cracked bottom pane.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
the bedroom window is operational and is not a Housing Code
violation; that the apartment door problem was caused by the
tenant's installation of faulty locks which weaken the door's
structure and that the apartment was painted after the date of the
DHCR inspection.
The petition was served on the tenant on March 28, 1988 and on
April 15, 1988, the tenant filed an answer to the petition stating
that any repairs or painting that were completed were done in an
unworkmanlike manner.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative 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 a reduction of the legal regulated rent to the level in
effect prior to the most recent guideline adjustment, and the DHCR
shall so reduce the rent for the period for 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.
A review of the record before the Rent Administrator clearly shows
that the owner failed to submit any credible evidence that the
deficiencies noted on the inspector's report were completed in a
workmanlike manner at the time of the DHCR's inspection or at any
time prior to the issuance of the Rent Administrator's order.
The Commissioner notes that the PAR contains the owner's admission
that the apartment was painted after the date of the DHCR
inspection.
Also, in the tenant's answer to the appeal, the tenant asserted
that any repairs or painting which were completed by the owner were
CB110186RO
done in an unworkmanlike manner.
The Commissioner finds that petitioner's assertions that some of
the services noted in the complaint were not Housing Code
violations or that the apartment door problem was caused by the
tenant are not material.
A service deficiency may not be a Housing Code violation and may be
caused by the tenant and yet warrant a rent reduction according to
DHCR standards.
The Commissioner finds, therefore, that the Administrator properly
based his determination on the entire record, including the results
of the on-site physical inspection conducted on November 23, 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 Commissioner finds, therefore, that the owner has offered
insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's
determination.
Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately apply for
a rent restoration.
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.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
stabilization Law and Code, it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
@ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ@
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
CB110186RO
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|