Docket No. DA420088RT
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. DA420088RT
DISTRICT RENT
Darlene Dillon, ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO. CG430002AV
PETITIONER
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 28, 1988, the above-named tenant filed a petition
for administrative review of an order issued on December 1, 1988 by
a Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodation known as
Apartment 10, 340 East 86th Street, New York, New York.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to
the issues raised by the petition for review.
On July 6, 1988, the Department of Buildings for the City of
New York mailed to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(D.H.C.R.) a notice which asserted that as a safety precaution the
Department of Buildings will disconnect the subject building's
electrical service on July 22, 1988. The above-mentioned notice
noted that there were building violations, under Violation No.
MO19145, pending against the subject building.
On November 15, 1988, the Administrator mailed a "Notice of
Commencement of Proceeding" to the subject landlord and to various
tenants which asserted, among other things, that, based on the
above-mentioned notice issued by the Department of Buildings, the
rent agency proposed to establish a maximum rent for each rent
controlled apartment at $1.00 per month.
On November 18, 1988, a physical inspection of the subject
apartment was carried out by the D.H.C.R. The inspector, in his
report, noted that the electricity was working in the subject
building.
Docket No. DA420088RT
In the order under review herein, the Administrator stated
that: "Physical inspection held on 11/18/88 revealed that
electricity has been restored to the subject premises. Therefore,
this proceeding is hereby terminated."
In her petition the subject tenant asserts, among other things,
that the building violations reported against the subject building,
listed under violation No. MO19145, have not been removed; that as
the aforementioned violations are still pending against the subject
building, as the tenant asserts, the Administrator's order should
be revoked; that the subject building's electrical service was not
disconnected on July 22, 1988 or subsequently "due to the technical
and procedural workings of the Bureau of Electrical Control"; that
the subject tenant was not served with the aforementioned "Notice
of Commencement of Proceeding"; that the subject tenant was not
given an opportunity to submit a response in the proceeding before
the Administrator, and that the tenant asserts, as a result of this
procedural error the Administrator's order should be revoked.
In his response, dated February 14, 1989, the subject landlord
asserts that the electricity in the subject building was never
disconnected.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the tenant's petition should be denied.
The Commissioner finds that the rent agency initiated this
proceeding to determine if the maximum rents of the rent controlled
apartments in the subject building should be reduced based upon the
Department of Buildings' notice, dated July 6, 1988, which asserted
that as a safety precaution the Department of Buildings will
disconnect the subject building's electrical service on July 22,
1988.
As the reduction of the maximum rents, in this proceeding, were
predicated on the disconnection of the subject building's
electricity by the Department of Buildings; that as the rent
agency's inspection report noted that on November 18, 1988 the
electricity in the subject building was on that the subject
landlord asserts that the electricity in the subject building was
never disconnected, and that the subject tenant dues not dispute
the landlord's aforementioned assertion, the Commissioner finds
that, in this proceeding, there is o basis to reduce the subject
tenant's maximum rent.
As to the tenant's assertion that the building violations
reported against the subject building, listed under Violation No.
MO19145, have not been removed, the Commissioner finds that that
issue is outside of the Commissioner scope of review as the only
issue before the Administrator was whether the maximum rents should
be reduced based upon the disconnection of the subject building's
electricity. As the record reflects that the subject building's
Docket No. DA420088RT
electricity was not disconnected, the Commissioner finds that the
Administrator's order under review herein should not be disturbed.
The record reflects that the petitioner was not served with a
"Notice of Commencement of Proceedings." The Commissioner is of
the opinion that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to
submit a response in the proceeding before the Administrator, and
as a result the petitioner's right to due process was denied.
However, the Commissioner is of the opinion that it is not
necessary to remand this proceeding to the Administrator as there
is not issue for the Administrator to determine; as the record
reflects and the petitioner admits, that the subject building's
electricity was not disconnected.
The Commissioner finds that this order and opinion is issued
without prejudice to the right of the subject tenant to file a
complaint with the rent agency for a reduction in rent due to a
diminution of services, if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent and Rehabilitation
Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|
