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.:DG410197RO
Alexander Breet Assoc. Inc. c/o RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
Finkelstein, Borah et al., DOCKET NO.:CE410294S
SUBJECT PREMISES:
1175 Park Avenue
Apt. 12A1
New York, NY
PETITIONER
-----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on June 13, 1989 concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the petition.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on May 13, 1988 asserting that
DHCR requested him to file this new complaint because water damage
to the living room ceiling and walls was already covered by the
Administrator's order under Docket No. LS004511-S issued on October
23, 1985; and now that all the rooms in the subject apartment were
damaged by water leaks.
In answer, the owner denied the allegations and otherwise asserted
that the tenant refused access.
On May 16, 1989, Notices of Inspection (For Access) were mailed by
DHCR to the tenant and the owner, advising them to be at the
premises on May 31, 1989, 9:00-9:30 AM for the tenant to provide
access and for the owner's worker(s) to perform the repairs at the
time. The notices further state that "failure of the owner and/or
his repair person(s) to be present and ready to attend to repairs
and/or restore services, or failure of the tenant to keep this
appointment will result in a determination based solely on the
evidence presently in the record."
Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted on May 31, 1989 by a DHCR staff member who confirmed that
the apartment ceilings and walls were peeling paint and plaster;
that the foyer closet was blistered and peeling paint and plaster.
The inspector further noted that the tenant was present but the
owner failed to show up in this inspection for access.
By an order dated June 13, 1989, the Administrator directed the
DG410197RO
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the tenant
cannot get a double rent reduction for the same decreased services
and that the tenant refused access.
In answer, the tenant denied the allegations and otherwise asserted
that he was advised by DHCR to file a new complaint because the
defective conditions were no longer in the living room walls and
ceilings; and that he never refused access but negotiated, for the
sake of his wife who was seriously ill, various appointments with
the owner by doing many of the repairs himself.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
The record establishes that the parties were notified of a scheduled
inspection (For Access), advising them that "failure of the owner
and/or his repair person(s) to be present and ready to attend to
repairs and/or restore services, or failure of the tenant to keep
this appointment will result in a determination based solely on the
evidence presently in the record." The inspection report on that
scheduled appointment stated that the apartment ceilings and walls
were peeling paint and plaster; that the foyer closet was blistered
and peeling paint and plaster; that the tenant was present but the
owner failed to show up in this inspection for access.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is
authorized to order a rent reduction, upon application by a tenant,
where it is found that an owner has failed to maintain required
services. The owner's petition does not establish any basis to
modify or revoke the Administrator's determination based on the
inspection (for access) which confirmed the existence of defective
conditions, warranting a rent reduction, and the owner's failure to
attend to these conditions.
Further, the owner's petition fails to rebut the contention that the
findings of the May 31, 1989 inspection are different and not
duplicative of the previous conditions in the living room walls and
ceiling.
The owner is advised to file a rent restoration application if the
facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
