ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DL630315RO
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.:
DL630315RO
:
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
DB630106B
NORMAN BRESSER
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 26, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed
a petition for administrative review of an order issued on December
8, 1989, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 88 West 197th Street, Bronx, N. Y., various
apartments, wherein the Administrator determined that the rents of
rent controlled apartments in the subject building should be
reduced by $15.00 per month effective on the first rent payment day
following the issue date of the Rent Administrator's order and the
rents of rent stabilized tenants should be reduced by a guideline
effective May 1, 1989. The order was based upon an inspection held
on November 10, 1989, which showed that although the owner was
maintaining a number of services, other services were not being
maintained. Specifically, the inspection showed evidence of water
leaks on the sixth floor and lobby ceiling; defective windows in
sundry locations in the building and trash and debris in the back
alley.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issue raised by the administrative appeal.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DL630315RO
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly
reduced the rent of various rent-controlled and rent stabilized
tenants in the subject building based upon a building-wide decrease
in services.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, among other things,
that the Rent Administrator erred by reducing the rents because
there has not been a decrease in services and that what repairs
were needed are in progress; that a complaint regarding hallway
windows was not received by the owner or DHCR; that certain tenants
no longer reside in the building and that one tenant did not sign
the complaint form.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
A Statement of Building-wide Complaint was filed on February
28, 1989, by twelve tenants alleging that the owner was not
maintaining various services in the subject building.
The owner filed an answer to the tenants' complaint alleging,
in essence, that all service problems had been addressed.
The Commissioner has considered the owner's claim that the
Rent Administrator erred by reducing the rents of the rent-
controlled and rent stabilized tenants and rejects this argument.
On November 10, 1989, an inspection was conducted of the
subject premises. The inspection report confirmed the existence of
a number of service deficiencies noted in the tenants' complaint.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code,
a tenant may apply to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(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 for which it is found that
the owner has failed to maintain required services.
Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations provides,
in pertinent part, that the Administrator may order a decrease of
the maximum rent otherwise allowable, where there has been a
decrease in the dwelling space, essential services, furniture,
furnishings or equipment.
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Rent
Administrator had erred on the basis that certain tenants were no
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DL630315RO
longer in occupancy or that one tenant had failed to sign the
complaint form.
The Commissioner finds that a Rent Administrator's rent
reduction order applies to the apartment and remains in effect even
if the tenant moves from the apartment, until such time as an
owner's application for rent restoration is granted.
The Commissioner has also considered the owner's contention
that one rent controlled tenant did not sign the complaint but was
erroneously granted a rent reduction and rejects the argument.
It is fundamental that all rent controlled tenants are
entitled to a rent reduction where service deficiencies are shown;
regardless of whether they sign the complaint form.
The record also belies the owner's claim that the tenants did
not complain about the windows. A review of the tenants' complaint
indicates that the windows were mentioned and were an object of the
tenants' concern.
The owner had eight 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.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based
his determination on the entire record including the results of the
on-site physical inspection conducted on November 10, 1989; and
that pursuant to Section 2223.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code
and Section 2202.16(a) of the Rent and Eviction Regulations the
Administrator acted properly in reducing the rent upon determining
that the owner had failed to maintain services.
The Commissioner notes that as late as April 16, 1990, sundry
tenants in the building had filed affirmations of owner non-
compliance or had otherwise complained that the owner had not
corrected all of the service deficiencies noted in the complaint.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the
owner's right to file the appropriate application with the Division
for a restoration of rents 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, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DL630315RO
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
