Docket Number: DC 430155-RO
                                  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.: DC 430155-RO
                                                  (Refile of CA-430086-RO)
             GLM EQUITY CORP.,                  
                                                 DRO DOCKET NO.: AI 430109-B
                                  PETITIONER     
          ----------------------------------X                           
            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On January 7,  1988,  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review  against  an  order  issued  on
          November 10, 1987  by  the  Rent  Administrator  at  Gertz  Plaza,
          Jamaica, New York, against the prior owner concerning the premises 
          known as 99 East 4th Street, New  York,  New  York,  reducing  the
          tenants' rent on the grounds that building wide services  had  not
          been maintained.  As the order had been  mailed  to  the  previous
          owner, the PAR was not dismissed for untimeliness although the PAR 
          was filed more than thirty-five  days  after  issue  date  of  the
          Administrator's  order.   However,  on  February  23,  1989,   the
          Commissioner  issued  an  order  rejecting  the  PAR  for  various
          procedural  reasons  without  prejudice  to  refile   a   properly
          completed PAR  in a timely manner.  The owner perfected the appeal 
          on March 9, 1989.

          The issue in these  proceedings  is  whether  the  Administrator's
          order was proper.

          The applicable law is Section 2202.16 of  the  Rent  and  Eviction
          Regulations and Section 2520.6(r) of the Rent Stabilization Code.

          On September  9,  1986,  various  tenants  filed  a  complaint  of
          decreases in building-wide services against the then-owner of  the
          subject premises.

          On December 2, 1986,  the  Administrator  served  a  copy  of  the
          tenants' complaint on the owner of record, who failed to respond.

          An inspection conducted on  January  15,  1987  confirmed  several
          conditions reported by the tenants.

          Based  on  the  inspection  report,  on  November  10,  1987,  the
          Administrator issued orders reducing the rents for rent controlled 
          tenants by $8.00, based on findings of rodent infestation  of  the
          public  areas  ($4.00),  littered  and  dirty  public  floors  and
          stairwells  ($3.00),  and  missing  elevator  fan  and  inspection
          certificate ($1.00).  The rents of  the  rent  stabilized  tenants
          were reduced to the  level  in  effect  prior  to  the  last  rent
          guidelines increase which commenced before the effective  date  of
          the rent reduction, January 1, 1987. 

          On May 11,  1988,  the  Administrator  issued  amended  orders  to






          Docket Number: DC 430155-RO

          include several rent controlled tenants omitted from the  November
          10, 1987 order.

          The petitioner challenges the orders arguing that  it  was  denied
          due process in that the 1987 Rent Registration form filed with the 
          Division in October 1987 put the Division on notice of the  change
          in ownership on December 4, 1986,  and  that  therefore,  the  new
          owners should  have  been  served  with  a  copy  of  all  pending
          complaints  concerning  the  subject  premises.   The   petitioner
          further  contends  that  the  complaining  tenants  also  had   an
          obligation to advise the Division of the new owner, as well as  to
          inform the new owner of their pending complaint.   The  petitioner
          also points out that the owner has never received  notice  of  the
          complaint and that, in fact, received notice of the order from the 
          attorney for the tenants in a letter dated December 15, 1987.

          As to substantive issues, the petitioner asserts that the  problem
          of mice infestation was corrected by extensive extermination on  a
          weekly basis over a period of six  months  between  March  through
          November  1987,  conducted  by   the   extermination   contractor.
          Additionally, the petitioner claims that public areas are cleaned, 
          repaired and painted as necessary, that a new  superintendent  was
          appointed who regularly sweeps and washes public areas,  that  the
          elevator fan was replaced in June 1987 and that it has taken steps 
          to install a  vandal  proof  frame  for  the  elevator  inspection
          certificate.  In support, the owner submits,  among  other  items,
          various  invoices,  and  contracts  from  the  extermination   and
          elevator contractors and cancelled payment checks.

          The  tenants  responded  that,  in  fact,  services  continue   to
          deteriorate.  The tenants also complained of additional  apartment
          and  building-wide  service  reductions,  in  addition  to   those
          confirmed by the Administrator.

          The  record  below  establishes  that  the  tenants  filed   their
          complaint with the Division several months prior to  the  transfer
          of title to the petitioner.  The Administrator properly served the 
          complaint on the owner of record, albeit title had passed  in  the
          interim between the filing of the complaint  and  service  of  the
          complaint.

          The  Commissioner  rejects  the  petitioner's  argument  that  the
          Administrator's and the tenants' failure to provide the owner with 
          notice of the complaint denied the owner its due  process  rights.
          The Administrator was under no obligation  to  search  case  files
          upon receipt of notice, by the October 1987 registration, of a 






          Docket Number: DC 430155-RO

          change in ownership, or to serve copies of notices  or  complaints
          previously served.  Nor is there any obligation  that  the  tenant
          notify the owner.

          The Commissioner notes that the petitioner is silent as to its own 
          responsibility to inquire of the former owner  for  disclosure  of
          the existence of Court or Administrative proceedings affecting the 
          premises, or to have contacted the Division,  coincidentally  with
          the transfer of  title,  for  its  own  protection,  to  ascertain
          whether there were any pending dockets.

          In this connection, the Commissioner finds the new  owner  as  the
          successor in interest, to be responsible as the former owner,  who
          was notified as the owner of record,  for  the  conditions  found,
          whether or not the former owner disclosed  the  existence  of  the
          administrative proceedings to his successor.

          However, as the owner did register the premises in  October  1987,
          it was incumbent upon the Administrator to  serve  the  new  owner
          with a copy of the order, which was issued after the owner's  1987
          rent registration.  The Administrator's failure to serve  the  new
          owner a copy of the November 10, 1987 order permitted the  owner's
          administrative appeal to be filed more than thirty-five days after 
          the Administrator's order issued.  

          Concerning the petitioner's objection to rent  reductions  awarded
          to rent controlled tenants who did not  sign  the  complaint,  the
          Commissioner notes that rent controlled tenants need  not  sign  a
          complaint in order to be eligible for rent reductions.  

          The tenants are advised that a response to an owner's petition  is
          not the proper vehicle to raise service reductions  not  addressed
          in the Administrator's order or not previously  raised.   However,
          this order is issued without prejudice to the  tenants'  right  to
          file complaints for current building-wide  service  decreases  not
          addressed below, as the facts may warrant.  The tenants  may  also
          file individual tenants' complaints in regard to apartment issues.

          This order is further issued  without  prejudice  to  the  owner's
          right to file an application to restore rents, if not already done 
          so, based on a restoration of services. 

          THEREFORE, in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Rent  &
          Eviction Regulations, the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, Chapter 
          403 of the Laws of 1984, and Chapter 102 of the Laws of  1984,  it
          is







          Docket Number: DC 430155-RO


          ORDERED, that the owner's petition be  and  the  same  hereby  is,
          denied, and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
          as affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                        
                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          Deputy Commissioner


    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name