DB110035RO
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.: DB110035RO
DB110036RO
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BI110070B
Anita Owner's Inc., BI110069B
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 3, 1989, the above-name petitioner-owner filed
petitions for administrative review (PARs) of orders issued on
January 10, 1989, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 99-05, 99-40, and 99-60 63 Drive, Rego Park,
NY, wherein the Administrator directed the restoration of services
and ordered a reduction in the stabilized rent.
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 appeal.
The proceeding was commenced by the filing of complaints of
decrease in services by the tenants dated September 30, 1987.
Although the complaints related to different building addresses the
contents of the complaints were identical. Thereafter, on August
22, 1988 and October 18, 1988 inspections were conducted by a
Division employee which confirmed the existence of some of the
complained of conditions resulting in the orders of January 10,
1989.
In the PARs, the owner contends that he purchased the building
in August, 1988 and was not aware of the complaint; that 80% of
repairs were made as soon as the complaint was known; that any
retroactive rent reduction should be the responsibility of the
prior owner; that some repairs are minor and have been delayed due
to the season (playground repairs); that the existence of some of
the conditions is disputed (cracked roof steps, leaking playground
ramp);and that certain repairs have already been made (hallways
plastered and painted).
DB110035RO
Copies of the owner's PARs were served on the tenants.
Several tenants responded requesting either the PARs be denied or
alleging additional defective conditions.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the PARs should be
denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code,
DHCR is required to order a rent reduction, upon application by a
tenant, where it is found that an owner has failed to maintain
required services.
The Commissioner notes that the inspection was conducted in
response to specific items raised in the complaint, and the report
was prepared by an agency employee who is not a party to the
proceeding. The Commissioner is of the opinion that it was
appropriate for the Administrator to rely on the results of the
inspection as they relate to the complaint, rather than the
statements of a party to the proceeding, in determining the outcome
of this case. Accordingly, the report of inspection, was properly
accorded substantial weight and the results of that inspection
support a finding of a decrease in services.
A change in ownership before an order is issued does not
limit the new owner's responsibility for payment of the retroactive
rent reduction. While the current owner, the petitioner, was not
served by this agency with a copy of the complaint, the prior owner
was afforded notice of the complaint and an adequate opportunity to
respond or otherwise make repairs. It is the responsibility of a
new building owner to obtain information concerning all complaints
and proceedings on file with the Division prior to assuming
ownership. As such, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to
inquire about the existence of the subject complaint and the status
of the prior owner's efforts at addressing same prior to taking
title to the building. Since the prior owner was fully aware of
the pendency of the proceeding before the Administrator and to its
obligation to maintain services, the petitioner acquired title
subject to the petitioner's claim about its own lack of notice and
inability to participate in the proceeding is not justified, and
the petitioner's request for remand and/or modification of the
effective date of the order is not warranted.
DB110035RO
Notwithstanding this, the record in this case discloses that
the owner was aware of the complaint, it having been disclosed by
the former owner, and it responded to the complaint within one
month of taking title. The Commissioner finds that the current
owner is bound by the Administrator's order, including the portion
of the order which reduced rents retroactively.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is,
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,
denied and the Rent Administrator's orders be, and the same hereby
are, affirmed.
ISSUED:
___________________
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|
