CL210083RO
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.: CL210083RO
ALLSTATE REALTY ASSOCIATES RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: BL210640S
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
AND REVOKING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On December 15, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued on November 9, 1988. The order concerned the
housing accommodations known as Apt. 5C located at 1414 East 12th
Street, Brooklyn, N.Y. The Administrator directed restoration of
services and ordered a rent reduction for failure to maintain
required services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on December 18, 1987 by
filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein he
alleged, in sum, that the owner was not maintaining certain
required apartment services.
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded
an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on March 21,
1988 and stated that access to the apartment had been denied based
on the fact that the tenant had been hospitalized but that the
tenant had returned home and the owner would investigate the
complaint and make any necessary repairs. The tenant filed a reply
on September 22, 1988 and stated, in relevant part, that the
painting had been done in two stages for the tenant's benefit and
at the convenience of the painter.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on October 24, 1988 and
the inspector reported that the bedroom wall behind the radiator
was repaired in an unworkmanlike manner. All other services were
found to have been maintained, including the bathroom paint job,
CL210083RO
which was reported to have been done in a workmanlike manner.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
November 9, 1988 and ordered a rent reduction of an amount equal to
the percentage of the most recent guideline adjustment for the
tenant's lease commencing prior to March 1, 1988. In the order,
the Administrator stated the inspection revealed that the bedroom
wall behind the radiator had been repaired in an unworkmanlike
manner and that the bathroom paint job had been done in an
unworkmanlike manner.
On appeal the owner states that the tenant signed a copy of a
work order on July 26, 1988 and attested to the fact that the
apartment was completely painted. The owner also states that
further repairs were made to the subject apartment on December 7,
1988. The petition was served on the tenant on February 23, 1989.
The tenant filed a response on March 3, 1989 and stated, in
relevant part, that the owner had restored services.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted
and the order hereunder review should be revoked.
On September 22, 1988 the tenant filed a reply to the owner's
response to the complaint and admitted that the apartment had been
painted and that all conditions cited in the portion of the
complaint describing the defective wall behind the radiator had
been corrected. The tenant made numerous complaints about other
conditions existing in apartment but did not refer to the items
cited in the Administrator's order. The DHCR inspector who
conducted the above-described inspection reported that the wall
repair was done in an unworkmanlike manner but did not elaborate on
the nature of the unworkmanlike repairs. The Commissioner further
notes that the DHCR inspector reported that the bathroom paint job
was done in a workmanlike manner but the Administrator erroneously
cited an unworkmanlike paint job in the order being appealed.
The tenant did not complain about the conditions cited in the
Administrator's order in his September 22, 1988 reply. In view of
all of the foregoing, the Commissioner finds that the owner timely
addressed the tenant's complaint and whatever defects the inspector
reported were new conditions of which the owner had no notice. The
Commissioner further notes that the tenant's March 3, 1989 response
to the petition stated that the defects the inspector noted had
been repaired. The owner apparently addressed the new conditions
in a prompt manner upon receipt of the Administrator's order.
Based on all of the foregoing, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petition should be granted and the order being
appealed should be revoked. If the tenant owes arrears based on
the Commissioner's decision herein, said arrears may be paid off in
CL210083RO
twenty four (24) equal monthly installments.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it
is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
granted, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, revoked.
ISSUED:
LULA M. ANDERSON
Deputy Commissioner
|
