CK110083RO
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.: CK110083RO,
DF110116RO, DL110047RO
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
Richard Albert, DOCKET NO.: CD110006OR,
CK120108OR, DF110126OR
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On November 9, 1988, June 8, 1989, and December 1, 1989, the
above-named petitioner-owner timely filed petitions for
administrative review (PAR) of orders issued by the Rent
Administrator on October 4, 1988, May 17, 1989, and November 20,
1989 respectively, concerning the housing accommodation known as
93-49 222 Street, Apt. 1Y, Queens Village, N.Y. wherein the
Administrator determined the owner's various applications to
restore the rent which had been reduced under Docket Number
QC002678S.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issued raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced by the filing of an application
to restore rent dated April 4, 1988 (CD110006OR). An inspection
conducted by a Division employee on August 31, 1988 determined that
the services had been partially restored resulting in a partial
restoration of the rent under the October 4, 1988 order,
specifically that the kitchen faucets had been repaired and that
the bathroom cold water faucet still needed repair. A subsequent
application (CK120108OR) was denied by order issued May 17, 1989
which found, based on inspection conducted on April 12, 1989, that
the faucet still leaked. Another application (DF110126OR)
thereafter was granted based on the results of another inspection
conducted November 8, 1989 and the remaining rent was restored
effective December 1, 1989.
CK110083RO
In the various PARs, the owner contends that faucet repair is
an ongoing service, that faucets were repaired on numerous
occasions, that in court appearances on December 17, 1987 and March
22, 1988, in which outstanding apartment repairs were enumerated,
no mention was made of the faucets needing repair; that the order
was not mailed to the owner's correct address; that owner had no
notice of the inspection; that federal law requires a hearing
before penalties such as these can be imposed; that the tenant has
signed multiple meritless complaints and has refused access for
repairs; that the tenant should be penalized for using the Division
to obtain unjustified rent reductions; and that the rent should be
restored as of the date of the original rent reduction.
The tenant interposed answers requesting the denial of the
owner's petitions.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitions should
be denied.
In order for a rent restoration application to be granted, it
must be established that the conditions cited in the rent reduction
order have been corrected. In this case, the rent reduction order
described the services not being maintained as failure to make
repairs to kitchen and bathroom faucets.
The only relevant inquiry in this proceeding is whether that
condition was corrected. The owner's contention that repairs were
made on each visit to the apartment is controverted by the
inspection reports of August 31, 1988 and April 12, 1989, and
finally confirmed by the inspection conducted on November 8, 1989.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator's determinations were
properly based on the entire record including the results of on-
site physical inspection and that the orders hereunder review were
correctly issued and are affirmed.
The mailing of the order to a former address is harmless error
as the owner received the order and filed a timely petition. In
addition, there is no requirement in applicable law which requires
that a hearing be conducted before an order of this type can be
issued, or that an owner receive notice of DHCR inspections prior
to the issuance of the order where, as here, the inspection merely
substantiated the fact that the faucet was not repaired. The owner
has provided no evidence to substantiate the other allegations in
the PARs.
CK110083RO
THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent Law and the Rent
and Eviction Regulations, it is,
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,
denied, and that the Administrator's orders be, and the same hereby
are affirmed.
ISSUED:
___________________
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|
