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
|
