DHCR Decisions
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EB - 230040 - RO
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 NOS.:
EB - 230040 - RO;
: EB - 230106 - RT
DRO ORDER NO.:
CL 230071 - B
BEN HAIMOWITZ
PETITIONER-OWNER
WILFREDO CANDELA
PETITIONER-TENANT :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING OWNER'S AND TENANT'S
PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 8, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed
a Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order
issued on January 10, 1990 by the Rent Administrator at Gertz
Plaza, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations
known as 315 Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the
Administrator determined the tenants' joint complaint of a
decrease in several building-wide services.
The challenged order granted rent reductions based on the
results of an inspection conducted on November 16, 1989 that
confirmed the tenants' complaint of inadequate lighting in the
sixth floor hallways, a cracked and broken front sidewalk, and
holes in the fifth floor hallway ceiling. A number of other
service conditions were found to have been resolved. The issue
of doorman service was dismissed due to the tenants' default in
responding to a request for additional information.
The applicable law is Section 2520.6(r) and 2523.4 of the
Rent Stabilization Code.
On appeal, the owner asserts that new lighting fixtures have
been installed and that the cracks in the sidewalk have been
repaired. The owner denies that there were holes in the ceiling
in any public area.
One tenant, claiming to be the tenants' representative,
filed a petition requesting that the Administrator's order be
amended to reflect several of the conditions cited in the
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EB - 230040 - RO
complaint.
The appeals have been consolidated as they involve common
issues of law or fact. The applicable law is Section 2520.6(r)
and 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.
As to the claim that the conditions have been corrected, the
petition does not make clear whether the repairs had been made
before the order was issued or whether the repairs were made
following the issuance of the order. If it is the former, there
was no evidence presented to the Administrator for his
consideration to warrant a different result. If it is the
latter, then the determination was correct as issued. In either
case, there is no warrant to reconsider the findings.
Concerning both the owner's and the tenant's suggestion that
the Administrator's findings were not accurate, the Commissioner
notes that the inspector is not a party to the proceedings and
not an adversary to either the owner or the tenant.
Consequently, his impartial observations were afforded
substantially more weight by the Administrator, than either
parties' self-serving allegations.
The petitioner-tenant alleged that he is the tenants'
representative. However, Section 2529.1 of the Code provides
that a PAR must be verified or affirmed by each person joining
therein, and that a PAR filed by a representative must include,
at the time of filing the PAR, written evidence of authorization
to act in such representative capacity for the purpose of filing
the PAR. The one tenant that signed the PAR failed to present
written evidence of authority to act in a representative
capacity. It is, therefore, deemed that the petitioner tenant
filed individually.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's and the tenant's petitions be
denied, and that the Administrator's order be affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|