DF420169RO/DD430103RO
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.: DF420169RO
DD430103RO
KIZNER ASSOCIATES, INC, RENT
JOSEPH KIZNER ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: DC430064RP
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above referenced administrative appeals have been
consolidated as both contain common issues of law and fact.
On April 21, 1989 and on June 23, 1989 the above named
petitioner-owner filed Petitions for Administrative Review against
a Notice of Commencement of Proceeding to Reconsider Previous Order
dated March 24, 1989 and an order of the Rent Administrator issued
on May 22, 1989, respectively. The notice and order concerned the
housing accommodations located at 332 West 89th Street, New York,
N.Y., various apartments. The Administrator issued an order of
revocation in which the related rent restoration order bearing
Docket No. BF420046OR and the rent reduction order bearing Docket
No. LC000017B, were revoked.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by these
appeals.
This proceeding was commenced on June 20, 1984 when 8 tenants
of this 10 unit building joined in filing a Statement of Complaint
of Decrease in Building-Wide Services wherein they alleged, in sum,
that the owner was not maintaining certain required building-wide
services.
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded
an opportunity to respond. The Administrator ordered a physical
inspection of the subject building. The inspection was conducted
on March 29, 1985 and revealed that the public areas were clean but
that there was no resident superintendent. The inspector reported,
however, that the name and phone number of the nonresident
superintendent was posted in the lobby. The inspector also
reported the existence of conditions not cited in the complaint.
DF420169RO/DD430103RO
The Administrator notified the owner of the inspector's report
and the owner was afforded a period of time to rectify the
conditions. A reinspection of the building was conducted on
November 8, 1986 wherein the inspector reported that the public
areas were dirty and that there was inadequate janitorial service.
The Administrator issued a rent reduction order on July 28,
1986 and ordered a rent reduction for the rent controlled tenants
as well as those rent stabilized tenants who joined in filing the
complaint.
The owner then requested reconsideration of the
Administrator's order, arguing that the above described rent
reduction order contained an irregularity in a vital matter. The
owner stated that the initial inspection report noted that the
public areas were clean, that there was a sign posted with the name
and phone number of the nonresident superintendent and that a
resident superintendent is not required in a building of less than
13 units. The owner also argued that the reinspection of the
building, which was conducted on November 8, 1988, was erroneously
ordered based on reported conditions that were not part of the
original complaint and that the complaint should have been denied.
The Administrator sent a Notice of Commencement of Proceeding
to Reconsider Previous Order to the parties on March 24, 1989 and
requested that the parties advise as to whether the building was
being maintained. The Administrator agreed with the owner's
argument that a building of less than 13 units did not require a
resident superintendent. On May 22, 1989 the order being appealed
was issued by the Administrator. The order noted that the
regulations of the New York City Office of Code Enforcement stated
that a building containing 9 to 12 families where the owner does
not live on the premises must have a janitor who lives on the same
block and must have janitorial services provided. The
Administrator noted that the first inspection report described
above revealed that the public areas were clean and that the sign
containing the information about the janitor was posted in the
lobby. Accordingly, the Administrator revoked the order bearing
Docket No. LC000017B and further revoked a rent restoration order
bearing Docket No. BF420046OR as having no merit.
The owner filed two administrative appeals, which have been
consolidated for decision as noted above. The Commissioner
initially notes that the proceeding bearing Docket No. DD430103RO
is an appeal of the March 24, 1989 Notice of Commencement of
Proceeding to Reconsider Previous Order. Pursuant to the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code and Rent and Eviction Regulations this
notice is not an appealable order and this appeal is, therefore,
dismissed.
In the appeal assigned Docket No. DF420169RO the owner states
that it has incurred legal costs and expenses in this matter and
DF420169RO/DD430103RO
that the rents should not have been reduced. The petition was
served on the tenants on September 19, 1989.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that, in order for a party to file an
administrative appeal, it must demonstrate that it has been
aggrieved by the issuance of the order here under review. In the
instant proceeding, the Administrator's order of revocation does
not aggrieve the owner and, in fact, supports the contention that
the rent reduction ordered in Docket No. LC000017B was erroneous.
The petition is therefore denied and the order is affirmed.
The Commissioner further notes there is no provision in the
Code or Regulations which provides for the award of legal costs and
expenses in proceedings instituted upon the filing of a services
complaint.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and
Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that the petition bearing Docket No. DD430103RO be,
and the same hereby is, dismissed, and it is further,
ORDERED, that the petition bearing Docket No. DF420169RO, be
and the same hereby is denied and that the Rent Administrator's
order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
LULA M. ANDERSON
Deputy Commissioner
|
