DF 230388 RO; DF 210249 RT
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 NO.:
DF 230388 RO
DF 210249 RT
60-17 REALTY CORP., OWNER RENT
IRIS BIGGART, TENANT ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: CH 230098 B
PETITIONERS
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING TENANT'S PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW GRANTING OWNER'S PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND
REMANDING PROCEEDING TO RENT ADMINISTRATOR
The above named petitioner-owner and petitioner-tenant filed
timely Petitions for Administrative Review against an order of the
Rent Administrator issued May 31, 1989. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 60 East 17th Street, Brooklyn,
N.Y. The Administrator ordered a building-wide rent reduction for
failure to maintain required services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by these
appeals.
This proceeding was commenced on August 30, 1988 when 56 of
the 89 tenants of the building joined in the filing of a Statement
of Complaint of Decrease in Building-Wide Services wherein they
alleged the following services deficiencies:
1. Building directory in need of updating to aid
visitors and facilitate mail delivery,
2. Peeling paint and plaster,
3. Missing floor tiles,
4. Lobby drapes need to be replaced,
5. Defective intercoms,
6. Defective lobby door lock,
DF 230388 RO; DF 210249 RT
7. Building grounds not properly maintained,
8. Apartment doors do not slam shut properly;
defective peepholes,
9. Extermination needed,
10. Defective garage lighting,
11. Broken water tank,
12. Floors in need of waxing or buffing,
13. Inadequate heat,
14. Defective backyard fence.
A copy of the complaint was served on the owner at P.O. Box
30042, Brooklyn, N.Y. The owner failed to file a response.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspection was conducted on April 11, 1989 and
revealed the following:
1. Roach infestation,
2. Intercom system requires audio adjustment,
3. Sixth floor laundry room ceiling and ceiling near
apartment 6N are leak damaged; north bulkhead plus
fourth floor ceiling are cracked and bulging; north
fifth floor by exit door is cracked; south sixth
floor ceiling by elevator is crumbling,
4. North wing fifth floor laundry room has missing
floor tiles,
5. South backyard fence requires repairs.
The following services were found to have been maintained:
1. Lobby door lock adequate,
2. Lobby drapes adequate,
3. Adequate garage lighting,
4. Interior public areas have been painted and are
DF 230388 RO; DF 210249 RT
clean,
5. Water tank pump operative,
6. Directories have been updated.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on May
31, 1989 and ordered a rent reduction of an amount equal to the
most recent guideline adjustment based on the report of the
inspector. The rent reduction was ordered effective October 1,
1988.
The owner and one tenant have filed appeals from the
Administrator's order. In her petition, the tenant states that the
order here under review should be modified to state that the
hallways of the upper floor are unpainted and dirty.
The owner filed a petition for administrative review and
stated that it had never been served with a copy of the complaint
nor a copy of the order here under review. The owner claims that
it filed a report of change of identity of landlord with the DHCR
on January 28, 1987 and that the Administrator had notice of the
identity of the landlord as well as the proper mailing address.
Addressing the substantive findings of the order here under
review, the owner states that there is no roach infestation, that
monthly extermination services are provided to all tenants, that
the building is cleaned adequately, and that the tenants never
notified the owner about leaks nor problems with the intercom.
Attached to the petition is a copy of the Report of Change in
Identity of Landlord which was allegedly filed with DHCR. Also
attached are copies of a services contract with an extermination
company as well as a sworn affidavit by the building
superintendent, attesting to the fact that the building is being
cleaned and maintained.
Various tenants filed responses to the owner's petition. All
but one tenant state that the owner was served at the proper
address and that the order here under review was issued correctly
and should be affirmed.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the tenant's petition should be
denied, but that the owner's petition should be granted, that the
order here under review should be revoked and this proceeding
should be remanded to the Administrator.
Pursuant to Section 2527.3 of the Rent Stabilization Code the
DHCR must serve all applications for rent reduction on the owner at
the address contained in agency records. In this proceeding it is
apparent that the complaint was neither served on the registered
owner nor on the party whose name and address is contained in a
DF 230388 RO; DF 210249 RT
Notice of Change of Owner Identity which had been filed with the
agency. The Commissioner has examined the building registration
statement for 1988 which was filed by the owner with the DHCR.
This statement is the basis for obtaining the address of the owner
in order to make service of all documents. The Commissioner finds
that the address of the owner as it appears on the statement is
P.O. Box 300462, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11230. The complaint and order
were served on the owner at P.O. Box 30042, Brooklyn, N.Y. The
error in making proper service caused the owner to be denied due
process of law in not receiving the proper notice of the tenant's
complaints. Therefore, the owner's petition for administrative
review is granted and the order here under review is revoked as
being procedurally defective. This proceeding must be remanded to
the Rent Administrator so that proper service can be made on the
registered owner.
With regard to the allegations of the tenant in her petition,
the Commissioner notes that these allegations are at variance with
the report of the DHCR inspector. It is settled law that this
report is entitled to more probative weight than the unsupported
allegations of a party to the proceeding. The tenant's petition,
is therefore, denied.
If the current owner has already complied with the
Administrator's order and arrears are due and owing by reason of
the Commissioner's determination herein, the tenants may be
permitted to pay back said arrears in twenty four (24) equal
monthly installments. Should any tenant vacate an apartment or
have previously vacated, any arrears are due and payable
immediately.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
is
ORDERED, that the tenant's petition be, and the same hereby
is, denied, and that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby
is, granted, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the
same hereby is, revoked, and it is further,
ORDERED, that this proceeding be, and the same hereby is,
remanded to the Rent Administrator for further processing in
accordance with this order and opinion.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
