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.:DI410222RO     
                                                   (Refile of DH410003RO)    
           
          Gertrude Bauer c/o                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
          Bee & Bee Mgmt.,                         DOCKET NO.:DD510441S      
                                                       
                                                   SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                      25 Post Avenue
                                                      Apt. 5E
                                   PETITIONER         New York, NY    
          -----------------------------------X                           

            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN
            PART AND REMANDING PROCEEDING TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER 
                                     CONSIDERATION

            The above-named owner refiled and perfected a timely petition for 
            administrative review of an order issued on July 18, 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 April 27, 1989 by filing a 
            complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain 
            services in the subject apartment.

            In an answer dated May 17, 1989 (filed May 25, 1989), the owner 
            denied some of the allegations in the complaint and otherwise 
            asserted that all repairs were done. The owner enclosed copies of 
            two work orders, with alleged tenant's signatures acknowledging 
            completion of repairs on May 19 and 23, 1989 respectively, and 
            requesting cancellation of her complaint.

            On May 26, 1989, an inspection of the subject apartment was 
            conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of the 
            following various conditions:

                 (1) Panelling in the hall was installed in an unworkmanlike    
                     manner.
                 (2) The apartment was peeling paint and plaster throughout; the 
                     walls were uneven.
                 (3) The window guards were installed in an unworkmanlike       
                     manner throughout.
                 (4) The oven thermostat was defective.
                 (5) There was vermin infestation.
                 (6) The kitchen electrical outlet was inoperative.
                 (7) A bathroom door stop was required.
            DI410222RO







            Based on the processor's notes, the Administrator as late as July 
            10, 1989 was unaware of the owner's answer. There is no indication 
            in the record that the Administrator attempted to verify the 
            tenant's signatures in the pertinent papers.

            By an order dated July 18, 1989, the Administrator directed the 
            restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.

            In this petition, the owner contends in substance that all work was 
            done; that the tenant acknowledged completion of repairs on May 19 
            and 23, 1989, i.e. before the inspection and the order's issuance.

            DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant. The record does 
            not indicate that the tenant answered the petition. 

            After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
            the petition should be granted in part, as more fully set forth 
            below.

            A search of the record shows that the tenant filed various 
            statements indicating withdrawal of the complaint not only in the 
            proceeding below but even subsequent to issuance of the 
            Administrator's order, namely on May 23, 1989, December 19, 1990, 
            March 20, 1991 and July 1, 1991.

            Based on the tenant's signed statements on May 19 and 23, 1989, the 
            owner could reasonably assume that no further action was required 
            and that the proceeding before DHCR would be terminated without a 
            rent reduction. Due process requires that the tenant's statement,if 
            submitted by the owner, be served on the tenant and, if challenged, 
            that the owner be advised that the complaint was not being 
            withdrawn.

            In the instant case, the physical inspection revealed that contrary 
            to the owner's allegations and the statements allegedly signed by 
            the tenant, the necessary repairs were not done and could not 
            possibly have been done properly on May 19 and 23, 1989 if a 
            subsequent physical inspection disclosed various defective 
            conditions.

            The Commissioner notes that the owner filed the following rent 
            restoration applications: EE510092OR denied on February 27, 1991, 
            FD510101OR denied on October 24, 1991, and FK510095OR denied on 
            January 25, 1994.

            A rent reduction for the various conditions found by inspection is 
            required pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code. 
            But because of the failure to forward to the tenant the signature 
            for verification, this proceeding must be remanded to the 
            Administrator for further processing.

            This proceeding is remanded to the Administrator for purposes of 
            verifying the tenant's signatures on the work orders and tenant's 
            "withdrawal" submitted with the owner's answer filed May 25, 1989.


            DI410222RO


            The Commissioner is of the further opinion that a prospective stay 



            of the rent reduction is warranted in light of the foregoing; the 
            stay of the retroactive refund was automatic upon filing of the 
            petition.

            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, granted in 
            part;

            ALSO ORDERED, that this proceeding be, and the same hereby, is 
            remanded to the Administrator to verify the tenant's signatures on  
            the work orders and "withdrawal" submitted as part of the owner's 
            answer filed May 25, 1989; and

            FURTHER ORDERED, that a prospective stay of the rent reduction is 
            warranted, effective the first day of the month following the 
            issuance date of this Order and Opinion, in accordance with the 
            above.

            ISSUED:


                                                                          
                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  Deputy Commissioner


             



    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name