DC630223RO
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.: DC630223RO
N & A MANAGEMENT CO., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: CF630057B
PETITIONER
-------------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 15, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on February
15, 1989, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 2076 Wallace Avenue, Bronx, New York,
wherein the Administrator found that there had been a reduction in
services, building wide, and ordered a rent decrease.
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.
This proceeding was commenced by the filing by various tenants of
a complaint of reduction in services. The owner was served with a
copy of the tenants' complaint and filed an answer. Thereafter, an
inspection by a Division employee confirmed the existence of some
of the complained of conditions, resulting in the Administrator's
order reducing the rent by one guideline for the rent stabilized
tenants.
In the PAR, the owner states that it was not notified of the
conditions in the building; that a new intercom system was
installed in July 1988; that the building wide complaint was filed
by a tenant representative and since owner has not received a
statement signed by the various tenants requesting a rent cut, the
tenants are not entitled to a rent reduction; that janitorial
services are being provided; it is the tenants who are littering
the hallways.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
DC630223RO
that the petition should be denied.
The evidence of record indicates that the owner was served with the
tenants' complaint on June 29, 1988, that it was signed by the
tenant of Apt. 411, that the request for relief was joined in by 11
other tenants, that the complaint listed 3 tenant representatives
(one of whom also signed the complaint), and that the owner
responded to the complaint in a submission dated July 1, 1988. The
Commissioner therefore rejects the owner's contention that the
tenants listed in the order did not sign the complaint or that the
owner was not notified of the conditions complained of.
The owner's assertion that a new intercom system was installed in
July 1988, which was prior to this Division's inspection in
November 1988, does not contradict the inspector's finding. The
owner's assertion lacks credibility in view of the fact that, in
the proceeding below, the owner asserted that a new intercom system
had been installed in March 1987. The physical inspection confirms
that the intercom system, even if it is new, is not functioning
adequately. The physical inspection conducted by the Division
must be given greater weight than the owner's self-serving
statements.
The owner's contention that the building is kept clean is belied by
the results of inspection, and its assertion that the conditions
are tenant induced is no defense. An owner may not absolve itself
of responsibility for hallway cleanliness by claiming that the lack
thereof was caused by the tenants. An owner is responsible for
maintaining the hallways in a clean condition.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent Law, the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and the
Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
|
