DE 430142-RO, et al.
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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.: DE 430142-RO;
DE 410359-RT; DE 430353-RT;
ROBERT LAWRENCE c/o PALA MGMT. DE 410358-RT; DE 420355-RT;
AND VARIOUS TENANTS OF 226-230 DE 410360-RT; DE 410357-RT
EAST 12TH STREET, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER CH 430027-B
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
OF THE TENANT OF APARTMENT 7-B, DENYING OWNER'S PETITION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, AND TERMINATING OTHER TENANTS'
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCEEDINGS
The Commissioner has consolidated these petitions as they involve
common questions of law and fact.
The above named owner and various tenants filed timely petitions
for administrative review of an order issued on April 7, 1989 by
a Rent Administrator concerning various housing accommodations
in the premises known as 226-230 East 12th Street, New York,
New York, wherein rents were reduced due to a diminution of
services.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues
raised by the petition for review.
On August 5, 1988 five rent controlled tenants of the subject
building filed an application for rent reductions based on the
owner's alleged failure to maintain service alleging inter alia
water seepage due to defective windows in public areas, exposed
electrical wiring in the lobby, public areas in need of painting,
and that the building required waterproofing and pointing.
On September 20, 1988 the owner interposed an answer to the
tenant's complaint wherein it alleged that the building did not
require waterproofing and pointing, that the electrical wiring
had been rectified, that new windows would be installed within
ninety days, and the repainting of the public areas w s in pro-
gress.
On February 7, 1989 a physical inspection f the subject prem-
ises was carried out by the Division of Housing and Community
DE 430142-RO, et al.
Renewal (DHCR). The inspector, in his report, noted that the
complained of conditions were as alleged by the tenants.
On April 7, 1989 the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review finding that a diminution of services had occurred
and reducing the tenants' rents to the levels in effect prior to
the last rent guideline increases which commenced before the
effective date of the rent reductions.
On June 9, 1989 an amended order was issued granting an eleven
dollar monthly rent reduction to the tenants of apartments 9-A,
3-H, 9-G and 9-D after these tenants advised the Rent Adminis-
trator of their rent controlled status. The amended order did
not affect the tenant of apartment 7-B who is also subject to
rent control.
In their petitions for administrative review the tenants of
apartments 7-B, 9-A, 3-H, 9-G and 9-D reque t that the Commis-
sioner specify a dollar amount in regard to the rent reductions
as they are rent-controlled tenants.
In its petition for administrative review the owner requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order alleging that all of
the windows have been replaced, that the building does not
require waterproofing and pointing and that when water seepage
complaints have occurred, "we have handled it. At this date, we
have no current complaints of water seepage in any apartments."
The owner further states that the exposed electrical wiring cited
by the administrator are cable television and telephone wires,
cosmetic in nature, and that the inspection occurred prior to the
completion of painting and the "currently six of the eleven halls
have been painted and the balance will be finished in the next
three/four weeks."
In their petition for administrative review (DE 430353-RT) the
tenants of apartments 9-A, PH-A, 6A, 1-J, 2-D, 4-B, 10-A, 8-F,
2-A, 6-G, 7-E, and 9-J request that the rent reductions be ex-
tended to Rent Stabilized tenants.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the following
opinion:
The petition of the tenant of apartment 7-B should be granted.
This tenant was one of the five origin l rent-controlled signa-
tories of the complaint. However, the amended order issued on
June 9, 1989 failed to include him.
The petition of the owner should be denied. The Commissioner
notes that the owner's petition is devoid of any evidence to
substantiate any of the contentions made therein as to ongoing
renovation, repairs in progress, errors of fact in regard to the
exposed wiring, pointing, etc...
Moreover, the owner had seven months from the date of service of
the tenants' complaint until the issuance of the administrator's
order to investigate the tenants' complaint and to make the
necessary repairs, but failed to do so.
DE 430142-RO, et al.
The Commissioner notes that while the owner questions the
findings of fact the record clearly reflects those findings by
virtue of DHCR inspection which occurred on February 7, 1989.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator
properly determined that the owner had fail d to maintain ser-
vices based on the evidence of record, including the results of a
physical inspection of the subject premises and correctly deter-
mined that a diminution of services had occurred.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's
rights as they may pertain to an application to the Division for
a restoration of rent based upon the restoration of services.
In regard to the individual petitions of t e tenants of apart-
ments 9-A, 3-H, 9-G and 9-D (DE 420355-RT, DE 410359-RT, DE
410358-RT, and DE 410360-RT) the Commissioner notes that these
petitions were filed prior to the issuance of the June 9, 1989
amended order and that by the issuance of that order they have
been rendered moot. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that
these proceedings should be terminated. (The relief requested
has already been granted.)
In regard to the joint petition for administrative review of the
various tenants (DE 430353-RT) the Commissioner notes that none
of these tenants were signatories of the original complaint nor
did they participate in the proceeding under review. Accordingly
the Commissioner finds that they do not have standing and that
this proceeding should be terminated.
In conclusion the parties are advised:
1) Rent reductions of 11 dollars monthly are
applicable to the apartments 9-A, 3-H, 9-G,
9-D and 7-B effective May 1, 1989.
2) No rent stabilized apartments were granted
reductions.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it
is,
ORDERED, that petition DE 410357-RT be, and the same hereby is,
granted to the extent of granting an eleven dollar monthly rent
reduction for apartment 7-B effective May 1, 1989, and it is
further
ORDERED, that the owner's petition DE 430142-RO be, and the same
hereby is, denied and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and
the same hereby is, affirmed as modified herein, and it is
further
DE 430142-RO, et al.
ORDERED, that administrative review proceedings DE 430353-RT, DE
420355-RT, DE 410359-RT, DE 4103538-RT, and DE 410360-RT be, and
the same hereby are, terminated.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
