ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: CJ-410131-RO
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 SJR NO. 6246
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
CJ-410131-RO
:
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: BK 410658-S
URBAN ASSOCIATES,
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
This determination is issued pursuant to a Stipulation of
Settlement remitting Court proceedings, commenced by the tenant
pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules in the
nature of mandamus, to the Commissioner for disposition.
On October 25, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed
a Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order
issued on September 22, 1988 by the Rent Administrator at Gertz
Plaza, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodation
known as 433 West 21st Street, New York, N.Y., Apartment PH,
wherein the Administrator determined the tenant's complaint of a
reduction of services.
An inspection conducted on August 16, 1988 confirmed several
of the conditions cited in the tenant's complaint. Based on the
inspection report, the Administrator reduced the rent to the
level in effect before the most recent guideline adjustment.
On appeal the owner argues, as below, that the apartment is
not subject to rent stabilization. The owner also asserts it was
denied due process in that it was not notified of the inspection
nor afforded the opportunity to comment on the inspector's report
or to make the required repairs, and that the Administrator's
order did not indicate that the Administrator's findings were
based on an inspection.
The applicable law is Section 2523.4 and 2525.3 of the Rent
Stabilization Code.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: CJ-410131-RO
The Commissioner takes note that a final determination by
the Commissioner issued on March 27, 1992 under Docket No. EH
410038-RO, affirming an Administrator's determination under
Docket No. BK-410223-RV, dated July 20, 1991 that the subject
premises were subject to the provisions of the Rent Stabilization
Law and Code.
The Commissioner also rejects the argument that the owner
was denied due process because it was not apprised of the
inspection nor notified of the results prior to the
determination. Neither the Rent Stabilization Law nor the Code
require that such notice be given. The owner was fully informed
of the allegations in the tenant's complaint. The inspection
merely confirmed some of the allegations in the complaint.
Empress Manor Apartments v DHCR, 147 A.D. 2d 642, 538 NYS 2d 49
(A.D.2nd Dept 1989).
The fact that the Administrator's order did not check the
box to indicate that the conditions cited in the order were
confirmed by inspection was not prejudicial to the owner's rights
to due process. The record, including the inspection report was
available to the parties after the Administrator's determination
was issued, by filing a FOIL (Freedom of Information Law)
Application. The Administrator's order is modified to reflect
that the determination was rendered based on an inspection.
The owner's appeal did not address the specific findings
cited in the Administrator's order.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be and the same hereby
is denied, and the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed, as modified above.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: CJ-410131-RO
|
