ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DE 410138 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.:
DE 410138 RO
:
DISTRICT RENT ADMIN.
DOCKET NO.: CI 430023 B
PREMISES: 319 W. 35th
Street, New York, N.Y.
RONALD DEMILT,
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above described docket number.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issues raised by the petition.
On September 3, 1988, the tenant of apartment 5E, a rent
stabilized apartment in the subject premises, filed a complaint
of a decrease in building wide services. The complained of
conditions were as follows: security, the locks on the front,
back and basement doors didn't work, the buzzer and intercom did
not work; cleanliness, when it rained there was drip all the way
down to the second floor.
On October 11, 1988, the owner was served with the complaint
and was afforded an opportunity to review it and twenty days to
comment thereupon.
The owner interposed his answer on October 18, 1988, and
stated that basement door was locked, the front door was
operating properly and the back door which the complainant was
referring to was unclear. The owner goes on to state that if the
tenant was referring to the back door which leads to the back
yard, it was also functioning properly. The owner further stated
that the complainant never contacted the management office
regarding the leak, nor does he indicate where the "drip" was
located and that he cannot search the building for a "drip" that
has not been reported by telephone or in person. The owner goes
on to deny the tenant's allegation regarding the buzzer and
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DE 410138 RO
intercom system asserting that it was working properly. The
owner also refers to docket number CH 410223 R asserting that the
tenant was mistakenly undercharged and that he is asking the
Division to raise the rent to the correct legal rental. In
addition, the owner asserted that since July 1, 1988, the tenant
filed two complaints with the Division and that this constituted
harassment.
On March 15, 1989, a staff inspection was conducted by a
Division inspector. The inspector stated in his report that the
door locks were broken, that the intercom and buzzer system
required repair, the halls had been painted, there was peeling
paint on the fifth floor and a leak from the roof.
On May 1, 1989, the Administrator issued an order directing
restoration of services and reducing the stabilization rent in
apartment 5E of the subject premises, and, reducing maximum legal
rents in the rent controlled apartments.
In his petition for administrative review the owner requests
that the Administrator's order be reversed. The owner states in
the petition that the bell and intercom system are operative and
that the hall was completely painted. With regard to the rear
door, the owner states that there is no lock due to the Fire
Code, in that the door is an escape route in the event of a fire.
With regard to the other doors, the owner states that they are
working, but that when he repairs them, someone breaks them.
The tenant of apartment 3E answered the owner's petition
requesting that the petition be denied. The tenant contends that
the owner does not prove or even allege any error in fact or law
in the Administrator's order. The tenant asserts that the
owner's statements that all conditions have been restored or
cannot be restored due to the Fire Code do not set forth anytime
frame with respect to the issue date of the order or the date of
inspection. The tenant asserts that the owner's statements in
his petition are more appropriate for an application to restore
the rent. The tenant also states that as of May 16, 1989, the
rear door is still not secure and that the locks are still broken
on the basement door and need replacement.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should
be denied.
The owner's contentions in his petition are found to be
without merit collectively or individually. The contentions
regarding the rear door and the Fire Code were not offered in the
record below and are therefore inadmissible on appeal for the
first time. With regard to the statement that the other services
were restored, the owner does not make clear whether it is his
contention that services were restored before the building was
inspected or the order was issued, or whether the contention is
that services were restored following the issuance of the
Administrator's order. If it is the former, then the owner's
allegation is belied by the report of the Division inspector. If
it is the latter, then the Rent Administrator's order reducing
the rent was correct when issued.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DE 410138 RO
This order is issued without prejudice to the owner's right
to file an application with the Division for a restoration of
rent based upon a restoration of services, if the facts so
warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it
is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and
the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|