ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FA 410124 RO & EH 410077 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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.: FA 410124 RO
EH 410077 RO
:
MORTON KARPER,
DRO DOCKET NOS.:
EJ 410032 OR
PETITIONER : DF 430066 B
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
AND TERMINATING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 3, 1990 and January 14, 1991 the above-named
petitioner-owner filed Administrative Appeals against orders
issued on June 29, 1990 and December 6, 1990, respectively by the
District Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New
York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 205 West 22nd
Street, New York, New York.
The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate the
owner's administrative appeals for determination under this order
and opinion.
Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed a petition in the
Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and
Rules requesting that the "deemed denial" of his administrative
appeal be annulled.
On September 9, 1991 an order was signed by Justice Glenn
remitting the proceeding to the Division for an expeditious
determination of the petitioner's administrative appeal.
The issue in the petition filed under Docket Number EH 410077
RO is whether the District Rent Administrator properly determined
the tenant's application for a decrease in rent.
A review of the record reveals that on May 30, 1989, the
tenant filed a Statement of Complaint of a Decrea e in Building-
Wide Services alleging that the owner has failed to provide buzzer
services; that bricks were falling off the building; that there
was a broken panel to the front door of her apartment; that
exterminator services were lacking; that there was a leak from the
roof and that the stove pipes were clogged.
On June 21, 1989, the owner responded alleging, in substance,
that all repairs had been made.
On February 5, 1990, an inspection was held, which disclosed,
that with the exception of pitted and cracked tar paper, all
repairs had been made in a workmanlike manner; thus substantiating
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FA 410124 RO & EH 410077 RO
the owner's reply to the complaint.
However, on June 29, 1990, the District Rent Administrator
issued an order reducing the regulated rents in the subject
building, based on the inspection, which revealed parts of the
roof to be broken and cracked.
On appeal, the owner asserted that the tenant has engaged in
a history of unfounded complaints against him and that numerous
requests for rent reductions have been denied. Furthermore, the
inspection conducted by the DHCR showed clearly that with the
exception of pitted roof tar-paper, all repairs had been made.
The owner further claimed, on appeal, that even f the tar-
paper was pitted, it did not result in any leaks into the tenant's
apartment.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of
record, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative
appeal under docket No. EH 410077 RO should be granted and that
the administrative appeal under docket No. FA-410124 RO should be
dismissed.
It is clear that when the tenant filed her Statement of
Complaint below, she did not mention cracked or pitted roof tar
paper. Rather, there was, among other things, a claim of a leak
from the roof.
However, there is no evidence that a leak had occurred in the
tenant's apartment.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that it was error for the
District Rent Administrator to reduce the tenant's rent and that
the rent reduction order should be revoked.
The appeal filed under docket No. FA-410124 RO, is an owner's
petition filed against the District Rent Administrator's order
dated December 6, 1990, which denied the owner's application to
restore the rents.
A review of the file reveals that the aforesaid Petition was
not filed within 35 days after the issuance date of the order as
required by the applicable Regulations and Operational Bulletin
84-1, which provides that a Petition for Administrative Review
must be filed within 35 days after the date such order is issued.
There is no provision under the applicable Regulations
permitting an extension of time for the filing of a PAR.
The Commissioner finds that the petitioner has failed to
comply with the requirements set forth above and that the PAR must
therefore be dismissed.
The Commissioner further finds that, even if the petition
filed under docket No. FA-410124 RO had been timely filed, it must
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FA 410124 RO & EH 410077 RO
be terminated as being moot, insofar as the owner's petition
filed under docket No. EH 410077 RO is being granted; thus
obviating the need for a restoration proceeding, ab initio.
Should there be arrears owing to the owner as a result of
this order and opinion the tenant shall be permitted to pay off
such arrears in six equal monthly installments beginning with the
first rent payment date after issuance of this order and opinion.
If the tenant has vacated, such arrears shall be payable
immediately.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that the petition under docket number EH 410077 RO,
be and the same hereby is, granted; that the petition under
docket Number FA-410124 RO be, and the same hereby is dismissed
and further that the District Rent Administrator's orders be and
the same hereby are, revoked in accordance with this order and
opinion.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
