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.:
DL-110129-RO
:
JAIME ASSOCIATES, : RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
: DH-110536-S
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN PART AND MODIFYING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On December 18, 1989, the above-named owner-petitioner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review of an order issued on November
29, 1989 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street,
Jamaica, NY, concerning the housing accommodation known as 102-30
Queens Boulevard, Apt. 4-K, Forest Hills, NY, wherein the
Administrator directed the restoration of services, further finding
that a rent reduction based thereon was warranted.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order was
warranted.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on August 18, 1989 by the subject
tenant filing a complaint of decrease in services, alleging, among
other things, that the refrigerator freezer and the stove pilot
light were defective.
On September 1, 1989, a copy of the complaint was sent to the owner
with instructions to file an answer within twenty days. The record
discloses no answer from the owner in response to the tenant's
complaint.
DL 110129-RO
On November 16, 1989, a Division staff member made a physical
inspection of the subject apartment to investigate the tenant's
claims. The inspector reported, among other things, that a space
was found in the gasket by the hinges of the refrigerator freezer
door; and that the pilot light to the oven was not working
properly, taking a length of time for the oven to light.
On November 29, 1989, the Administrator issued the order hereunder
review, reducing the tenant's rent to the level that was in effect
prior to the last rent guidelines increase based on the above-
mentioned items in the inspector's report.
In the petition for administrative review (PAR), the owner seeks
reversal of the order, stating that an answer was supplied on
September 13, 1989 (certified mail receipt submitted) and, as
represented therein, the refrigerator was checked and found to be
in good working order, further noting that the tenant was shown how
to defrost it; and the pilot light problem was corrected. Attached
to the answer, and re-submitted with the PAR, is a tenant-signed
statement dated September 8, 1989 attesting to the repairs of her
complaint. Lastly the owner notes that, subsequent to the issuance
of the order, the items referenced therein were checked again and
they were found not to be the same items of the original complaint,
but nevertheless, such items were taken care of and the tenant
signed another statement dated December 4, 1989, re-submitted with
the PAR, again attesting to the repair of the items in question.
The tenant did not file an answer to the petition.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition should
be granted in part and the Administrator's order should be
modified.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, a tenant
may apply to the DHCR for a reduction of the legal regulated rent
to the level in effect prior to the most recent guidelines
adjustment, and the DHCR shall so reduce the rent for the period
which it is found that the owner has failed to maintain required
services.
Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include
repairs and maintenance.
In the instant case, however, the owner has established that an
answer was filed, and that answer, which was not before the
Administrator, contained a statement, purportedly signed by the
tenant, that all necessary repairs listed in the complaint had been
done. Based on this statement, the owner could reasonably assume
that no further action was required and that the proceeding before
the Division would be terminated without a rent reduction. Due
process requires that such a signed statement, if submitted by an
DL 110129-RO
owner, be served on the tenant and, if challenged, that the owner
be advised that the complaint was not being withdrawn.
The subsequent physical inspection of the subject apartment
revealed that, contrary to the owner's allegation and the statement
allegedly signed by the tenant, the necessary repairs were not done
and could not possibly have been done properly in September 1989 if
two months later they were found to be defective by the Division's
inspector. A rent reduction for these conditions is required
pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, but
because of the failure to verify the tenant's signature on the
signed work order or to advise the owner that the complaint was not
being terminated, the effective date of the rent reduction is
hereby modified to December 1, 1989, the first of the month
following issuance of the Administrator's order, when the owner had
actual knowledge that the complaint was still active and that the
agency's physical inspection revealed the need for additional
repairs.
The owner's claims about having checked the items in question on
December 4, 1989 and, per the second tenant-signed statement, re-
addressing such items involves action taken subsequent to the order
and are not relevant to the issue in this administrative appeal.
The Commissioner further notes that the items cited in the order
were categorically raised in the tenant's complaint.
The Division's records reveal that the owner's rent restoration
application was granted on September 14, 1990 (DRO Docket No. EA-
110042-OR).
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in
part and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
modified.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|