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.:DI110059RO
C.L. Realty Co. c/o RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
Kucker, Kraus and Bruh, DOCKET NO.:DE110419S
SUBJECT PREMISES:
81-69 Langdale Street
Apt. 203A
New Hyde Park, 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 August 3, 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 in May 1989 by filing a
complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain various
services in the subject apartment.
On June 2, 1989, DHCR mailed a copy of the tenant's complaint to the
owner, advising that "(f)ailure to file an answer within twenty (20)
days from the date appearing on this notice shall be considered a
default and may result in a determination based on the record as
presently before the agency."
Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted on June 26, 1989 by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the
existence of these defective conditions:
(1) The freezer was defective with 37 degrees Fahrenheit at the
time of inspection.
(2) The storage door in the oven was defective.
(3) Tiles were missing around the window area in the bathroom.
(4) The bathtub tiles needed grouting; there was also a cracked
floor under the bathroom sink.
(5) There was falling plaster and a cracked ceiling in the
bathroom.
(6) The kitchen counter top was in need of repairs.
(7) There were cracks in the ceiling and walls in the bedroom.
(8) There was roach infestation.
(9) The entrance door frame needed painting.
(10) There are leaks from the tenant's terrace to the mail box.
By an order dated August 3, 1989, the Administrator directed the
DI110059RO
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.
In this petition, the owner contends that due to the unusual amount
of individual complaints filed, the petitioner's attorney on July
13, 1989 requested an extension by phone and in writing. The owner
submitted copies of a certified mailing with return receipt of that
June 13, 1989 letter denying any reduction of services, requesting
to be notified of an inspection and requesting "an extension of time
to prepare a more thorough response to the tenant's complaint". The
owner alleges that the Administrator's failure to address the
request for an extension of time to file an answer to the complaint,
and the request for notice of an inspection, violated due process.
In answer, the tenant asserts in substance that the owner knew of
these conditions before the filing of the complaints in a meeting
with the tenants' association; that the owner had sufficient time to
rectify the situation; and that the owner stated that all repairs
had been made when in fact it has not made a diligent attempt to
resolve the complaint.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is
required 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 June
26, 1989 inspection which confirmed the existence of various
defective conditions, warranting a rent reduction.
In the instant case, the owner was properly served with the
complaint and the owner in fact answered the complaint. The owner
had sufficient notice of the complained of conditions. Due process
does not require that an owner should be given notice of the
inspection or inspection results, and the courts have upheld this
procedure (Empress Manor Apartments v. NYSDHCR, 538 NYS 2d 49, 147
AD 2d 642, February 21, 1989).
As to the issue of extending the time to file an answer, any request
for same which is not consented to in writing by DHCR is denied, and
no written response by DHCR is required (GA110112RO; DL410345RO).
The Commissioner notes that the owner's rent restoration application
(DH110229OR) was denied on April 25, 1990.
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:
LULA M. ANDERSON
Deputy Commissioner
|
