DOCKET NUMBER: CD-230254-RO, CE-210107-RT
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.: CD-230254-RO
: CE-210107-RT
RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, :
DRO DOCKET NO.: BC-230006-B
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 27,1988 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on April 4, 1988 by
the District Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York,
concerning the housing accommodations known as 1625 East 13 Street,
Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Administrator reduced the tenants' rents
on a finding of a building-wide reduction of services. On May 6, 1988 a
tenant's PAR was also filed.
The applicable law is Section 2202.16 of the Rent Eviction Regulations and
Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.
The issue in these proceedings is whether the Administrator's order was
correct.
The tenants commenced the proceedings by filing a complaint alleging that
the owner had failed to provide or maintain various building-wide
services. Specifically the tenants alleged that the building entranceway
and rear yard shrubbery was not maintained; that alleyways and hallways
were littered; that various windows were defective in that they admitted
drafts and water seepage, panes were broken and frames were deteriorated;
that the water damaged roof allowed leaking into top floor apartments;
that public hallway walls and ceilings had peeling paint and plaster; that
the exit door to the rear courtyard door was in poor condition, and that
as it was not self-closing, it presented a security problem; that the
basement was poorly lit and filthy; that basement pipes were rusty; that
the laundry room was filthy and in need of painting; that the lobby door
lock did not provide adequate security; that the elevator was periodically
out of order, filthy and in need of repairs; that there was severe roach
and rodent infestation; that there were periodic plumbing leaks; that
heat and hot water were inadequate; and that the water pressure was low.
The tenants also complained of several conditions pertaining to
apartments, which could not be accepted for processi g in the building-
wide complaint. In a detailed answer dated April 30, 1987, the owner
asserted that the tenants allegations were not true. The owner alleged,
among other things, that the premises were properly maintained and
cleared; that the windows were in satisfactory conditions; that a new roof
DOCKET NUMBER: CD-230254-RO, CE-210107-RT
had been installed in 1984; that the laundry room was well cleaned; that
exterminator service were provided monthly but that many tenants refused
to provide access to the exterminator, and that heat and water pressure
were adequate. The owner indicated that the exit door from the lobby to
the rear courtyard had been sealed by the previous owner at the tenants'
request; that the lights in the basement were kept off since the tenants
had no good reason to be there; that a new lock had been installed in the
lobby entrance door; and that hallway lighting was adequate and properly
maintained.
Inspections were conducted on June 8, 1987 and February 9, 1988 by the
Divisions inspection staff. The February 8, 1988 inspection confirmed
that certain conditions had not been resolved. The inspector reported
that the rear yard had an accumulation of debris; that the public area
windows had broken panes; that the lobby door had peeling paint; that
basement lighting was not adequate that basement pipes had peeling paint;
and that the rear courtyard door was not self-closing. There was no
evidence at the time of inspection of other conditions complained about by
the tenants.
In the owner's petition, the owner indicates that the rear yard has been
cleaned, that defective windows have been fixed and that the basement has
been repainted. The petitioner reasserts that the tenants have no
business in certain areas of the basement, but states that the
superintendent has been instructed to keep the basement lights on. The
petitioner reiterates that the rear courtyard door was removed and the
door was sealed as a security measure, at the tenant's request. The
tenants responded that the conditions cited by the Administrator had not
been corrected. With respect to the rear courtyard door, the tenants
argue that the doors was sealed in violation of the Certificate of
Occupancy.
The tenant's petition requested modification of the Administrator's order
to include additional conditions in the original complaint not cited in
the Administrator's findings.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
owner's and tenant petitions should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the Administrator's order was based on the
results of inspections below which investigated all of the allegations in
the tenant's complaints. The order granted rent reductions for the
conditions confirmed by inspection. The inspection reports, prepared by
rent agency employees, not parties to the proceeding, and not adversaries
to either the owner or the tenants, were properly placed in the record for
consideration by the Administrator, and were entitled to greater weight
than either the owner's or the tenants' allegations below and in their
appeals. As the tenant failed to establish any error of law or fact by
the Administrator, further consideration of the tenant complaint is not
warranted herein. As to the owner, the further admission at PAR that
certain services had been restored constitutes an admission as to those
items, of the prior existence of conditions warranting rent reductions.
DOCKET NUMBER: CD-230254-RO, CE-210107-RT
With regard to the rear courtyard door, the Commissioner notes that
Section 2522.4 of the Code provides that no reduction or decrease in
services shall take place by mutual consent or otherwise, prior to
approval by the Division of an owner's application to decrease services,
on forms prescribed by the Division.
Concerning the owner's argument that certain lights in the basement were
turned off because the tenant's had no reason to be in those areas the
Commissioner affirms the Administrator's determination on the grounds
that public access areas of the basement must be properly lighted to
insure the tenants' safety.
The owner may file an application to restore rents upon a showing of a
restoration of services, as the facts may warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law Code, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions for administrative review be, and the same
hereby are, denied, and that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and
the same hereby, is affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
