CE110215RO
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.:
CE110215RO
ANITA TERRACE OWNERS, INC. RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
JOHN H. WINFREY, DOCKET NO.:
BJ130753S
PREMISES: 99-60 63rd Rd.
PETITIONER Apt. 1-Q, Queens, 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 April 18, 1988 concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised in this petition.
The tenant commenced the proceeding below on October 5, 1987, by
filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
various services in the subject apartment.
The tenant's complaint was transmitted to the owner on December 1,
1987, with this warning:
"Failure to file an answer within twenty (20)
days from the date appearing on this notice
shall be considered a default and may result
in a determination based on the record as
presently before the agency".
By letter dated December 18, 1987, the owner requested an extension
until March 31, 1988 to interpose an answer to the complaint,
stating that "if we do not hear from you we must assume it has been
accepted."
On January 7, 1988, the Division informed the owner about the need
for more specific information concerning the request for an
extension, including "schedules for commencing and completing the
work".
CE110215RO
The owner failed to respond to DHCR's request.
Thereafter, on January 19, 1988, a physical inspection of the
subject apartment was conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported
that the hallway and bathroom walls were not painted, there is
vermin infestation in the apartment, and the kitchen cold water
faucet leaks.
On March 18, 1988, the Administrator directed the restoration of
services and a reduction of the stabilized rent.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends that
on March 17, 1988, it requested DHCR further extension to interpose
an answer until April 30, 1988, stating that "If we do hear from
you to the contrary we will assume such extension has been
granted". The owner believes that its request for extension was
denied without proper notification.
On July 15, 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
on-site inspection which found defective conditions in the
apartment, warranting a rent reduction. Accordingly, the order
appealed from was in all respects proper and is hereby sustained.
In this case, the owner had ample opportunity to address the
allegations in the October 5, 1987 complaint, but failed to do so.
Though timely put on notice that it had 21 days to interpose an
answer, the owner requested on December 18, 1987 an extension to
file an answer four (4) months later, i.e. on 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 sent the owner on January 7, 1988 a letter with an
inquiry for "schedules for commencing and completing the work." The
owner did not respond to DHCR's inquiry. The Commissioner notes
that the Division was not required to respond in writing to this
extension request and in the absence of a clear, written grant, the
owner should not assume that such a request would be granted.
The owner's contention in the petition that on March 17, 1988, it
requested DHCR further extension to interpose an answer until April
30, 1988 is beyond the scope of administrative review, which is
limited to the issues and evidence before the Administrator.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator was not
in error in refusing to extend the owner's time to answer more than
four (4) months after the answer was due.
CE110215RO
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 Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|