CI430016RO
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.: CI430016RO
ABRAHAM CHINITZ RENT
c/o Kucker Kraus & Bruh, Esqs. ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: CA430202OR
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 9, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued on August 3, 1988 concerning the housing
accommodations known as various apartments at 502 East 89th St.,
New York, NY wherein the Administrator denied the owner's rent
restoration application.
The Commissioner has carefully reviewed all the evidence of record
and has carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues
raised on appeal.
The owner filed an application seeking restoration of rent that had
been reduced in an order issued on July 9, 1986 under Docket No.
LCS000342B. The rent reduction was ordered based on a finding that
the owner had failed to provide the following services: laundry
room in need of cleaning, exterminating service, cleaning of public
areas, and painting of public halls. The owner alleged in the
restoration application that all these services had been restored.
The application was served on the tenants and several submitted
responses urging that the application be denied because services
have not been restored.
A physical inspection of the building by DHCR on June 6, 1988
revealed that laundry room and public areas were in need of
cleaning but that there was no evidence of infestation and the
public halls had recently been painted.
Based on the inspector's report, the owner's application was
denied.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner objects to the
CI430016RO
Administrator's order on the ground that the conditions found by
the inspector are minor and do not warrant a continuing building-
wide rent reduction, that the inspection was improper because it
was conducted without prior notice to the owner, and that the
finding that public areas require cleaning lacks specificity and is
contrary to fact.
The petition was served on the tenants on November 31, 1988.
Several tenants filed answers urging that the owner's petition be
denied because building maintenance continues to be a problem.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
An owner is entitled to restoration of rents that were ordered
reduced by DHCR because of a finding of failure to maintain
services once it is established that all required services cited in
the rent reduction order have been restored. The determination as
to whether services have been restored is generally made on the
basis of a physical inspection of the premises by a DHCR employee.
In the instant case, the Division's inspector found that the
conditions for which the rent had been reduced had not all been
restored. The Rent Administrator properly relied on the results of
this report by an impartial employee of the agency in determining
that the proper standards of cleanliness were not being maintained
in the laundry room and public areas. There is no basis for
granting a rent restoration application when some but not all of
the conditions have been restored and the owner's application was
properly denied.
THEREFORE in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
it is
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
|
