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.: CE110217R0
J.H. Winfrey/
Carol Management Corp., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BI110304S
PETITIONER PREMISES: Apt. 11X
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 April 27, 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 September 21, 1987 by a tenant
filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
various services in the subject apartment.
On November 6, 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 your agency to the
contrary, we will assume such request has been granted."
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.
CE110217RO
On February 19, 1988, a physical inspection of the apartment was
conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of
defective conditions.
By order dated April 28, 1988, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and further ordered a reduction of the
stabilized rent based on these inspection results:
1. The recently plastered wall located under the kitchen sink
requires painting.
2. The kitchen wall located above the sink was painted over
peeling paint and rotted wood in an unworkmanlike
manner.
3. The bathroom ceiling and walls are peeling paint and
plaster.
4. There are rust-covered sills in the living room, two
bedrooms and the dining area.
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";
that this extension is necessary to do exterior repairs during warm
weather; and that it was not notified by DHCR that this request was
denied.
In answer, the tenant asserted that the owner's petition does not
contest the findings of the timely inspection; and that the owner's
alleged reason for extension depends on warm weather and exterior
repairs has no bearing on the decreased services within the
apartment.
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, warranting a rent reduction.
The determination was in all respects proper and is hereby
sustained.
Although a copy of the complaint was transmitted to the owner with
notice to the effect that it had 21 days to interpose an answer, the
the owner requested an extension to do so four (4) months later,
stating that "if we do not hear from you prior to this date, we must
assume it has been accepted." Neither denying nor granting the
request for an extension, DHCR answered 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. The Commissioner notes that DHCR was not required to
CE110217RO
respond in writing to this extension request and in the absence of
a clear, written grant, the owner could not assume that such a
request would be 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 four (4) months after the answer was due.
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
|
