ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CB 130183 RO & CC 110145 RO
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 NOS.:
CB 130183 RO;
CC 110415 RO
:
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NOS.:
BH 130148 B
BJ 110020 B
HAMPTON COURT
BY MARSHALL SROGE
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
.ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING OWNER'S PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW UNDER DOCKET NO. CB 130183 RO, AND REVOKING
ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER, AND GRANTING OWNER'S PETITION
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW UNDER DOCKET NO.
CC 110415 RO IN PART
The above-named petitioner-owner filed timely Petitions for
Administrative Review (PARs) against orders issued on January 8,
1988 under Docket No. BH 130148 B, and on February 18, 1988 under
Docket No. BJ 110020 B, by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza,
Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as
117-01 Park Lane South, Queens, New York, wherein the Administrator
determined the tenants' complaints of reductions in building-wide
services.
The tenants' complaint under Docket No. BH 130148 B alleged,
among other items, a defective bell/intercom system, defective
laundry room equipment, open building doors resulting in lack of
building security, and defective elevators. The tenants' complaint
under Docket No. BJ 110020 B cited inadequate superintendent
services and reiterated the complaints of defective laundry room
equipment and the defective bell/intercom system. The records also
show that some tenants signed both complaints.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CB 130183 RO & CC 110145 RO
Both complaints were served on the owner, who filed separate
responses by certified mail. The owner asserted that
superintendent, maintenance, cleaning, laundry room, exterminator
and elevator services were properly maintained and were adequate
and that, in fact, the intercom system, building doors, elevator
equipment and laundry room equipment had recently either been
upgraded or replaced.
The challenged order under Docket No. BH 130148 B, issued on
January 28, 1988, reduced the tenants' rents based on the results
of an inspection conducted on December 4, 1988 that found that the
A-G line elevator was inoperative, that the roof and basement doors
were unlocked at the time of inspection, and that four washers and
two dryers were defective. The intercom system was found to be
working properly.
The order under Docket No. BH 110020 B issued on February 18,
1988, granted tenants' rent reductions based on the results of an
inspection conducted on January 6, 1988 that found that the new
intercom system was not working.
The status of the tenants was not known. Accordingly, both
orders directed the tenants to apply the appropriate rent control
or rent stabilization provisions for the rent reductions specified.
Amended orders were issued on January 10, 1990 for Docket No. BJ
110020 B to correct the omission of the various rent controlled
apartments from the original February 1988 order. All other
aspects of the order remained in full force and effect.
The owner filed similar administrative appeals challenging
each of the orders, and requesting that rent reductions be
reversed.
The applicable law is Section 2520.6(r) and 2523.4 of the Rent
Stabilization Code and Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction
Regulations.
In both appeals, the owner suggests that the complaints were
not received and that the owner did not have the opportunity to
respond. The claims are belied by the owner's timely responses by
certified mail in both cases.
In PAR Docket No. CB 130183 RO, appealing District Rent Office
Docket No. BH 130148 B, the owner claims, as below, that extensive
renovations were in the process of being completed for several
building systems at the time of the tenants' complaint and the
agency's inspection on December 4, 1987. The owner asserts that,
in particular, the elevator and laundry room equipment was
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CB 130183 RO & CC 110145 RO
inoperative for brief periods, as upgrades and replacement mandated
interruptions of service.
In fact, the January 6, 1988 inspection in the related, albeit
separate, proceedings under Docket No. BJ 110020 B confirmed that
the A-G apartment line elevator was operative and that laundry room
equipment was being installed at the time of inspection, prior to
the January 28, 1988 issue date of the challenged order. Since the
Administrator had notice that the conditions had been corrected or
that equipment was being upgraded, the tenants were not entitled to
rent reductions for these conditions.
Concerning the roof and basement doors, City ordinances
require that roof doors be self-closing, but not self-locking. In
fact, the equipment must permit the roof door to be opened from the
inside without a key in case of emergency, while preventing
unauthorized access from the outside. The use of a hook and eye
latch is expressly permitted; panic bar systems are also permitted.
It is not clear from the inspection record that, in fact, the
unlocked roof door violated any ordinance or that the situation was
chronic. The report of an open unlocked basement door is also
insufficient to support a finding of a reduction of services absent
evidence that the door unit was broken or defective or that the
situation was chronic. The owner has suggested that the condition
found was tenant induced as the tenants have keys to the basement
door.
The owner points out that the owner is providing additional
security, not base date services, in the form of a 24-hour security
patrol, and a closed circuit television monitoring system. While
the record is insufficient to establish a reduction of services
with regard to the roof and basement doors, the owner is cautioned
to insure that the doors remain closed in addition to maintaining
required equipment.
In PAR Docket No. CC 110145 RO, appealing District Rent Office
Docket No. BJ 110020 B, the owner similarly requested that rent
reductions were not warranted as the owner was in the process of
completing renovation of the intercom system. However, the owner
failed to indicate below and on appeal, the date of the
installation. The prior December 4, 1987 inspection in the related
proceedings found the intercom system to be working properly. The
owner's contention that the renovations required a brief
interruption of service for installation does not explain the
defects found on the January 8, 1988 inspection, which appear to
have arisen after the installation of the new equipment. The fact
that new equipment had been installed to insure upgraded service
did not abate the owner's responsibility to maintain and repair it
if it was broken or defective.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CB 130183 RO & CC 110145 RO
The owner is correct, however, that since the system was found
to be working properly on December 4, 1987, rent reductions for
rent stabilized tenants retroactive to December 1, 1987 were
improper. The effective date for rent rollbacks for rent
stabilized tenants is amended to January 1, 1988. Rent controlled
tenants were not affected as their rent reductions were effective
prospectively, as of the first rent payment date following the
February 18, 1988 issue date of the order.
Only tenants in the affected building were entitled to rent
reductions for a defective intercom system. The owner indicates
that the premises consists of an apartment complex made up of four
separate multiple dwellings consisting of six floors each. As the
owner has acknowledged, most of the tenants benefitting from the
Administrator's order resided in one of the four buildings on the
premises, i.e., the "A" building. The Commissioner notes that all
rent controlled tenants of the subject premises were entitled to a
rent decrease due to a reduction of building wide services
regardless of whether they signed the complaint, since the
complaint was signed by at least one rent controlled tenant. Rent
stabilized tenants must sign a complaint in order to be eligible
for rent reductions. In fact, most rent reductions were granted to
rent controlled tenants. The order is amended to revoke rent
reductions granted to any tenants who did not reside in the "A"
building.
For rent controlled tenants, specific monetary reductions are
imposed for each service reduction, and the Administrator may grant
partial rent restoration or refunds. For rent stabilized tenants,
rent reductions are imposed for any service decrease, and no
further rent reduction may be imposed for any additional service
decrease. The owner may not collect any increase or rent
restoration until the Administrator issues an order restoring the
rent based on the restoration of all outstanding services
reductions.
Any arrears due the owner from the tenants as a result of this
order may be paid by the tenants over the course of the next three
months.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, the City Rent Control Law and the Rent
and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition under Docket No. CC 110145
RO be granted to the extent that rent reductions for stabilized
tenants granted under Docket No. BJ 110020 B be effective January
1, 1988 instead of December 1,1987, as provided on the order. In
all other respects the order is affirmed. It is further
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CB 130183 RO & CC 110145 RO
ORDERED, that the owner's petition under PAR Docket No. CB
130183 RO be granted, that the Administrator's order be revoked,
and that arrears due the owner by tenants as a result of this order
be refunded as provided above.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
