CL120166RO; ED120302RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
------------------------------------x
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.:
CL120166RO
ED120302RO
Richard Albert,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
BL120744S
DI110072OR
CL110133OR
PETITIONER
------------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 8, 1988 and April 18, 1990, the above-named petitioner-
owner filed petitions for administrative review of orders issued on
November 17, 1988 and March 14, 1990 respectively by the Rent
Administrator, concerning the housing accommodation known as 93-45
222nd Street, Apartment 3K, Queens Village, New York. The
Administrator determined that the owner had failed to maintain
certain required services, reduced the rent, and directed the owner
to restore services, and in a separate order, that the owner had
failed to restore such services.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issue raised by the administrative appeals.
This proceeding was commenced by the filing by the tenant of
various complaints of decrease in services alleging various
conditions.
An inspection conducted by a DHCR staff inspector on September 29,
1988 confirmed some the complained of conditions resulting in the
Administrator's order of November 17, 1988 which reduced the rent
by $7.00 per month for vermin and exposed wiring in the apartment
doorbell.
Thereafter, the owner made an application to restore rent on the
basis that the conditions had been corrected. An inspection
conducted on February 16, 1990 by a DHCR staff inspector disclosed
that the conditions had not been corrected resulting in the
Administrator's order of March 14, 1990 denying restoration of
CL120166RO; ED120302RO
rent.
In the PAR filed against the order reducing the rent, the owner
contends that the exposed wire condition is too minor to warrant a
rent reduction, that the subject of extermination was addressed in
hearings conducted in a separate docket, that the Agency did not
follow established Federal procedures regarding hearing and due
process, that this case was brought by a tenant representative in
violation of a court stipulation, and that the tenants have
harassed the owner in every aspect of building management and have
filed duplicate complaints for rent reductions.
In the PAR, filed against the orders denying rent restoration, the
owner incorporates by reference the contents of the PAR above
described, and in addition, requests that the orders denying
restoration be rescinded on the basis that the owner has always
maintained all required services.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that both petitions should be denied.
The Administrator's order says that there is evidence of vermin
infestation. There has been no finding that extermination is not
being provided or is not made available to tenants desirous of the
service. That this agency, in another docket, found that
extermination is provided monthly, does not contradict the
inspection results in this case. The Commissioner notes that
extermination, if performed, has been ineffective and such was
evident at the time of inspection.
The report of inspection dated September 29, 1988, by an employee
of the Division who is not a party to the proceeding was properly
placed in the record for consideration by the Administrator. The
Commissioner finds that it was proper for the Administrator to rely
on the report of inspection in determining the outcome in this
case. The Commissioner also finds that it was reasonable and
proper for the Administrator to find, based on the inspection
report that there was exposed wiring, that the doorbell had been
repaired in an unworkmanlike manner.
The Commissioner finds there is no requirement in applicable law
which requires that a hearing be conducted before an order of this
type can be issued. Affording an opportunity to present oral
testimony at a hearing is discretionary and it was not an abuse of
discretion to decline to conduct a hearing where the results of a
physical inspection confirmed the tenants' allegation of a failure
to maintain services.
Although the owner alleges that the complaint was prepared by
someone other than the tenant, in an attempt to harass the owner,
he has offered no evidence to substantiate this allegation and
although the owner cites court stipulations and judicial
CL120166RO; ED120302RO
determinations in support of his contention that such preparation
of complaints was prohibited activity, the Commissioner notes that
the owner has not offered in evidence copies of said stipulations
and determinations, either before the administrator or by
attachment to the petition.
While Section 2525.5 of the Code gives tenants the right to
commence proceedings against an owner based on harassment, no such
right is available to owners. The owner's allegations of tenant
harassment may not be entertained herein. This order and opinion,
however, is issued without prejudice to the owner's right to pursue
an appropriate remedy in an appropriate forum if the facts so
warrant.
Although the owner contends that duplicate complaints have been
filed, there is no assertion or proof that more than one rent
reduction has been granted by the Administrator for identical
service deficiencies.
The owner's second petition, against the orders which denied rent
restoration, is likewise denied. The owner's assertion that all
services are being maintained is belied by the report of the
inspection of February 16, 1990 which found that the conditions in
the rent reduction order had not been corrected. The record
presented including the results of an on-site inspection supports
the Administrator's order and the owner has presented no evidence
to warrant reversal of the Administrator's determination.
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 the Administrator's orders be, and the same hereby are,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
LULA M. ANDERSON
Deputy Commissioner
|
