ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CH 610100 RO ETC.
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 NOS.:
CH 610100 RO;
: CL 630354 RT;
CH 620096 RT;
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NOS.:
BL 630059 OR;
ERNEST RICHMAN-PETITIONER/TENANT CI 610013 RP
ADBAR REALTY-PETITIONER/OWNER
:
------------------------------------X
.ORDER AND OPINION DENYING TENANT'S PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW AND TERMINATING OWNER'S PETITION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AS MOOT
On December 22, 1988, the above-named petitioner tenant filed
a Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) of an order issued on
December 6, 1988 (CI 610013 RP) by the Rent Administrator at Gertz
Plaza, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations
known as 2015 Newbold Avenue, Bronx, New York. The appeal was
assigned Docket No. CL 630354 RT.
The proceedings below (Docket No. CI 610013 RP) were conducted
pursuant to a Commissioner's order, dated February 9, 1988, that
remanded the proceedings to the Administrator to reconstruct the
file and to reconsider issues raised in rent reduction and related
rent restoration proceedings.
The challenged order (CI 610013 RP) affirmed the
Administrator's rent reduction order (AG 630103 B) issued on March
17, 1987, and restored the tenants' rents to the levels in effect
prior to the rent abatements, effective March 1, 1988. The
Administrator noted that there was evidence that the rear alleyway
step defects that had given rise to the rent reductions had been
corrected, in that the inspection conducted on February 26, 1988 in
rent restoration proceedings under Docket No. BL 630059 OR, had
indicated that steps in the rear alleyway had been repaired, and
that the other conditions that had given rise to the rent
reductions had been corrected. The Administrator's order under
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CH 610100 RO ETC.
Docket No. BL 630059 OR, dated July 18, 1988, had, nevertheless,
denied rent restoration, based on the inspector's report of broken
lobby steps. The December 6, 1988 order (CI 610013 RP) reversed
the July 18, 1988 determination, and restored the tenants' rents,
noting that broken lobby steps were not a subject of the underlying
rent reductions.
However, the Administrator had not considered the objections
of at least two tenants that had responded to the Administrator's
notice reopening the proceedings. The tenants had asserted that
the owner had removed, and never replaced, the rear alleyway steps.
The tenant's appeal of the December 6, 1988 order reiterates
the charge. Therefore, an inspection was conducted on June 25,
1992. The inspector reported no evidence of a broken stairway in
the location that went from Pugsley Avenue into the rear alleyway
identified by the petitioner. In light of two separate inspection
reports, several years apart indicating, that rear alleyway steps
were not defective, there is no warrant to disturb the
Administrator's December 6, 1988 order (CI 610013 RP) that restored
the rents.
The tenant indicates that he filed the PAR as the authorized
tenant representative. The Commissioner notes, however, that
Section 2529.2 of the Code requires that a PAR must be verified or
affirmed by each person joining therein, and that a PAR filed by a
representative must include, at the time of filing the PAR, written
evidence of authorization to act in such representative capacity
for the purpose of filing the PAR. The one tenant that signed the
PAR failed to present written evidence of authority to act in a
representative capacity. It is, therefore, deemed that the
petitioner tenant filed individually.
The tenant's petition per Docket No. CH 620096 RT challenging
the July 18, 1988 order (BL 630059 OR), likewise, is denied. The
question of broken steps was rendered moot by reason of the
Administrator's December 6, 1988 order (CI 630013 RP) superseding
the prior proceedings per Docket No. BL 630059 OR, and restoring
the rent effective March 1, 1988 based on findings, detailed above,
that there was no evidence of broken rear alleyway steps, now or
then.
The tenant's further assertion in that appeal (CH 620096 RT)
that public areas were still not cleaned properly is insufficient
to warrant reconsideration of the Administrator's determination
that the public ares were cleaned at the time of inspection. The
Administrator's determination (BL 630059 OR) was based on the
report of an agency inspector. His impartial observations were
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CH 610100 RO ETC.
properly placed on the record for the Administrator's consideration
and were entitled to and were afforded great weight.
The owner's administrative appeal (CH 610100 RO) challenging
the July 18, 1988 order (BL 630059 OR) that denied the owner's rent
restoration application on the grounds of broken lobby steps, is
terminated as moot, by reason of the Administrator's December 6,
1988 superseding order (CI 630013 RP), restoring the rent effective
March 1, 1988.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, the City Rent Control Law and the City
Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that the Administrator's order per Docket No. CI
610013 RP be affirmed, that the tenant's petitions per Docket Nos.
CL 630354 RT and CH 620096 RT be denied, and that the owner's
petition per Docket No. CH 610100 RO be terminated as moot in
accordance with the above.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
