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.: CE110163R0
J.H. Winfrey/
Visutton Management Corp., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BJ110326S
PETITIONER PREMISES: Apt. 3R
99-05 63rd.Dr.
Rego Park, NY
-----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on May 4, 1988 concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by this administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on October 5, 1987 by a tenant filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain various
services in the subject apartment.
On November 27, 1987, a copy of the complaint was transmitted to the
owner with notice to the effect that it had 21 days to interpose an
answer.
By letter received on December 18, 1987, the owner requested an
extension to file an answer until March 31, 1988. In its letter, the
owner states that "if we do not hear from you we must assume it has
been accepted."
On January 7, 1988, DHCR requested the owner to submit more specific
information including, but not limited to, "schedules for commencing
and completing the work."
CE110163RO
The owner having failed to respond to DHCR's request on February 22,
1988, a physical inspection of the apartment was conducted by a DHCR
staff member who confirmed the existence of peeling paint on foyer
and living room walls.
In a late answer filed on March 2, 1988, the owner submitted a
tenant-signed work order which in relevant parts stated that plaster
and paint were applied as needed, the work having been allegedly
completed on January 27, 1988, i.e. before the DHCR inspection.
By order dated May 4, 1988, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and further ordered a reduction of the
stabilized rent based on the inspection finding of peeling paint on
foyer and living room walls.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends that
by a letter dated March 17, 1988, it requested DHCR for further
extension until April 30, 1988, stating that "if we do not hear from
you to the contrary we will assume such extension has been granted".
On July 14, 1988, a copy of the owner's petition was mailed to the
tenant.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
The Administrator's determination was properly based on a timely
inspection which found defective conditions in the subject
apartment, warranting a rent reduction. The owner's submission of a
tenant-signed work order which in relevant part stated that the
application of plaster and paint was completed prior to the
inspection is belied by the report of the DHCR on-site inspector,
who confirmed the existence of peeling paint on foyer and living
room walls, subsequent to the owner's alleged repairs. In addition,
this submission in the proceeding below was not raised by the owner
in the petition. Therefore, the Administrator's determination was
proper and is hereby sustained.
Though the complaint was transmitted to the owner with notice to the
effect that it had 21 days to interpose an answer, the owner
requested an extension to file an answer until March 31, 1988,
stating that "if we do not hear from you we must assume it has been
accepted." Neither denying nor granting the request for an
extension, DHCR subsequently requested the owner for more specific
information on "schedules for commencing and completing the work".
The owner's late response to DHCR's inquiry alleged that repairs
were completed prior to the inspection. However, the inspection
contradicted the owner's assertion of repairs. The Commissioner
notes that the Division is not required to respond in writing to
this extension request and in the absence of a clear, written grant,
CE110163RO
the owner should not assume that such a request is granted.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator was not
in error in refusing a second application to extend the owner's time
to answer more than three (3) months after the answer was due.
The Commissioner notes that the owner's rent restoration application
(CL110114OR) was granted on July 17, 1989.
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 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:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
