CF230132RO
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.: CF230132RO
M.C.D. REALTY RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: BA230063B
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 6, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed a Petition
for Administrative Review of an order of the Rent Administrator
issued May 6, 1988 concerning the housing accommodations known as
various apartments at 645 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, NY, wherein
the Administrator found that certain services were not being
provided or maintained, directed restoration of such services, and
ordered a rent reduction.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence of record and has
carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues raised on
appeal.
A review of the record reveals that 21 tenants in this 23 unit
building joined in filing a complaint dated January 19, 1987 in
which they alleged that the front doors to the building do not have
proper locks and are frequently left open, that the hallways are
not swept and mopped on a regular basis, that the intercom and bell
system is not working properly, that heat and hot water services
are provided on a sporadic basis, and that the mailboxes are in
poor condition.
In answer to the complaint, the owner stated that all the services
mentioned in the complaint are properly maintained.
A physical inspection by DHCR on April 23, 1987 revealed that the
lock and buzzer on the second entrance door had been removed, that
the hallway floors throughout the building were dirty and required
mopping, that the intercom and buzzer were working, that heat and
hot water services were adequate, and that the mailboxes required
repairs.
A second inspection on February 3, 1988 revealed that the locks on
the two front doors were defective, the halls and floors were
CF230132RO
clean, the intercom was defective, and some of the mailboxes were
still broken.
Based on this inspection, the Rent Administrator issued orders
reducing the rents for all rent controlled tenants in the building
and those rent stabilized tenants who joined in the complaint.
Only those tenants whose mailboxes were found to be broken were
granted a rent reduction for this item.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner asserts that
it never received any prior notice in reference to these repairs
and that according to an enclosed affidavit from the head of the
tenants association, all items have been repaired and are in proper
working order.
The petition was served on the tenant representative on July 19,
1988.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code requires DHCR, upon
application of a tenant, to order a rent reduction where it is
found that the owner had failed to maintain required services.
Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations authorizes a
rent reduction for rent controlled tenants based on a finding that
essential services are not being maintained. Both regulations
define required or essential services to include repairs and
maintenance.
A review of the record including the two physical inspections
supports the Rent Administrator's determination that the owner
failed to maintain certain services for which a rent reduction is
warranted. The owner's petition does not provide any basis for
revoking or modifying this determination. The owner's allegation
that it was not given notice of the repairs required is belied by
the fact that the owner filed an answer to the complaint. If, as
the owner alleges, all conditions have been repaired to the
satisfaction of the tenants, the owner should file a rent
restoration to get the rent restored. The Division's records
indicate that the owner's first restoration application was denied
(Docket No. CJ220096OR) and the second (Docket No. DC220095OR) was
granted in part, restoring $4.00 of the rent reduction ordered for
the rent controlled tenants. Accordingly, the rent reduction
remains in effect in full for the rent stabilized tenants and in
part for the rent controlled tenants, and the owner is not entitled
to collect any rent increases until another restoration application
is filed and granted.
Therefore in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is
CF230132RO
ORDERED that this petition be and the same hereby is denied and the
Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
