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.: CE110164R0
J.H. Winfrey/
Visutton Management Corp., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BJ110342S
PETITIONER PREMISES: Apt. 5D
99-40 63rd. Rd.
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 5, 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.
On December 10, 1987, the owner wrote DHCR requesting a thirty (30)
day extension to respond, stating that "if we do not hear from your
office to the contrary, we will assume that such request has been
granted."
By letter dated December 18, 1987, the owner requested another
extension to file an answer until March 31, 1988, again stating that
"if we do not hear from your office to the contrary, we will assume
that such request has been granted."
CE110164RO
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."
The owner failed to respond to DHCR's request.
On February 17, 1988, a physical inspection of the apartment was
conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of
defective conditions.
By order dated May 5, 1988, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and further ordered a reduction of the
stabilized rent based on these inspection results:
1. The bedroom ceiling is peeling paint.
2. The living room ceiling and walls have peeling paint and
plaster.
3. The apartment entrance door lock is defective; the cylinder
sticks.
4. The dining room and living room sills are peeling paint.
5. The two bedroom windows have air seepage.
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 would assume that such extension has been
granted"; and that it was not notified by DHCR that this request was
denied.
In answer, the tenant asserted in substance that there is still a
remaining defective condition.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
The record clearly shows that the Administrator's determination was
properly based on a timely inspection which found defective
conditions 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, stating that "if there were no
objections, we would assume that such extension has been granted."
Neither denying nor granting the request for an extension, DHCR
answered on January 7, 1988 the owner's letter with an inquiry for
more specific information on "schedules for commencing and
completing the work". The owner failed to respond to DHCR's inquiry.
CE110164RO
The owner made two extension requests, assuming in both instances
that DHCR grants the extension automatically. In the case at bar,
DHCR neither denied nor granted the requests, but answered the
owner's letter with an inquiry for some evidence of repairs as a
schedule for commencing and completing the work. The owner failed to
submit any evidence of repairs. The Commissioner notes that the
Division was not required to respond in writing to an extension
request and in the absence of a clear, written grant, a party may
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
owner.
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
|
