ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CG 430040 RO ET AL.
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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.:
CG 430040 RO;
DF 410070 RT;
: DF 410071 RT;
DF 410072 RT;
DF 410073 RT;
VARIOUS TENANTS, PETITIONER - DF 420074 RT;
TENANTS DF 410075 RT;
RONALD DE MILT, PETITIONER - DF 410076 RT.
OWNER
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NOS.:
: BJ 410072 B;
------------------------------------X CH 430138 OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING OWNER'S PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW AND GRANTING TENANTS' PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW, IN PART, TO THE EXTENT OF REMANDING RESTORATION
PROCEEDING TO THE RENT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
On July 22, 1988, the above named petitioner owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on
June 17, 1988, by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica,
New York, concerning the housing accommodations at 331 West 35th
Street, New York, New York, wherein the Administrator determined
the tenants' complaint of decreased building-wide services,
commenced on October 28, 1987.
The order challenged by the owner reduced the tenants' rents
based on the results of an inspection conducted on February 22,
1988 that confirmed the tenants' complaints of roach and rodent
infestation, an inoperative building entrance night light, broken
stairway steps between landings, holes in linoleum on landings and
stairs, and a building facade requiring repairs.
The above referenced petitioner-tenants filed timely PARs
against the order issued on May 10, 1989, wherein the Rent
Administrator determined the owner's application filed on August
10, 1988, to restore the rent previously reduced on June 17, 1988
per Docket No. BJ 410072 B, above.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CG 430040 RO ET AL.
The order challenged by the tenants restored the tenants'
rents to the pre-reduction levels based on evidence in the file,
including an inspection held on March 17, 1989 that indicated that
the conditions that gave rise to the rent reductions had been
corrected or were being addressed.
The owner's appeal of the rent reduction order is denied.
Repairs and items of normal maintenance should have been resolved
within the four (4) month period between the commencement of the
rent reduction proceedings and the inspection. The owner's
assertion of repairs and adequate periodic maintenance and
exterminating were belied by the February 22, 1988 inspection. In
fact, the inspection revealed the owner's then measures to have
been inadequate.
The tenants' petitions are granted to the extent of remanding
the proceedings to the Administrator for further consideration of
the issue of facade repairs.
As to the facade, the Administrator determined that rent
restoration was warranted based on the submission by the owner of
a copy of proposal, dated April 22, 1989, to repair the brownstone
facade, a copy of an uncancelled check to the contractor dated
April 23, 1989, and a statement signed by several tenants, also
dated April 23, 1989, to the effect that repairs were under way.
The tenants alleged, the owner acknowledged, and the inspector
confirmed that the brownstone facade was worn. The owner's
argument throughout the proceedings that the facade was
weatherbeaten but structurally sound brownstone is not compelling.
The condition affects more than the cosmetic appearance of the
building; it indicates a deterioration of the facade with possible
impairment of the structural integrity of the building.
The Commissioner also concurs with the tenants' suggestion on
appeal that the record failed to establish that the owner had
completed repairs to the facade in a workmanlike manner. Moreover,
the documentation submitted by the owner established that the
facade repairs had not even been commenced when the rent
restoration application was filed.
On remand, the Administrator should determine, based on
another physical inspection, whether the repairs to the facade have
been completed and, depending on the results of the inspection,
either revoke the rent restoration order, or issue a new order
modifying the effective date of the restoration to a date no
earlier than May 1, 1989, the date the owner's evidence indicates
repairs were commenced.
The Administrator's finding that there was no further evidence
of infestation is affirmed. The determination was based on the
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CG 430040 RO ET AL.
results of an inspection. The inspector was not a party to the
proceedings and not an adversary to either the owner or the
tenants. The Administrator properly afforded substantial weight to
the inspector's observations.
The Administrator also properly determined, based on the
tenants' statement of April 23, 1987, that the entrance night light
was operating.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, the Rent and Eviction Regulations,
Chapter 403 of the Laws of 1983 and Chapter 102 of the Laws of
1984, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be and the same hereby is
denied, and that the Administrator's rent reduction order be and
the same hereby is affirmed. It is further
ORDERED, that the tenants' petitions be and the same hereby
are granted in part, to the extent of remanding the rent
restoration proceedings to the Administrator for further
consideration in accordance with this order and opinion of the
issue of facade repairs only. In other respects, the
Administrator's order is affirmed. The automatic stay of so much
of the Rent Administrator's order as directed retroactive rent
restoration is hereby continued until a new order is issued upon
remand. However, the Administrator's determination as to the
prospective rent restoration is not stayed and shall remain in
effect pending the issuance of a new order upon remand.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
