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.:ED110314RO
Arjan Mirchandani, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:CK130093B
SUBJECT PREMISES:
63-70 Austin St.
Rego 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 by the Administrator reducing the rent and
directing restoration of services based on a finding of failure to
maintain required services.
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 tenants commenced this proceeding on November 3, 1988 by filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject building.
On January 11, 1989, DHCR mailed a copy of the complaint to the
owner, with a warning that failure to file an answer within twenty
(20) days from said date shall be considered a default and may
result in a determination based on the record as presently before
DHCR.
The owner failed to respond.
Thereafter, an inspection of the building was conducted on June 27,
1989 by a DHCR inspector who confirmed the existence of defective
conditions.
On October 17, 1989, DHCR mailed another copy of the complaint to
the owner, with a warning that failure to file an answer within
twenty (20) days from said date shall be considered a default and
may result in a determination based on the record as presently
before DHCR.
The owner failed to respond.
On January 25, 1990, an inspection of the building was conducted by
a DHCR staff member who again confirmed the existence
ED110314RO
of defective conditions.
In a late answer filed on March 20, 1990, the owner asserted that he
"completed the entire job."
By an order dated April 10, 1990, 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.
On June 11, 1990, DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenants.
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
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 record establishes that the owner was amply notified of the
tenants' complaint, but failed to diligently contest the allegations
in the complaint; and the owner's late answer in the proceeding
below was an unsubstantiated and bare allegation that the work was
done. The owner's petition does not establish any basis to modify or
revoke the Administrator's determination based on the June 27, 1989
and January 25, 1990 inspections which confirmed the existence of
defective conditions, warranting a rent reduction. Accordingly, the
order appealed from was in all respects proper and is hereby
sustained.
The owner's rent restoration application (FG130093OR) was denied on
April 16, 1992.
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent reduction that resulted
by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this
Order and Opinion.
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
|
