ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FC 630220 RT
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. FC 630220 RT
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S
: DOCKET NO. FB 630004 RK
MARIAN MARTINEZ (REP.)
PETITIONER : ----
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 14, 1991, the above-named tenant filed a petition
for administrative review of an order issued on February 27, 1991
concerning various housing accommodations in the premises known as
3464 Knox Place, Bronx, New York.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issues raised by the petition for review.
This proceeding was commenced on May 6, 1987 upon the filing
of a complaint of a decrease in building-wide services, to wit:
inadequate heat and hot water, under Docket No. BE 610019 HW.
On July 22, 1987, a physical inspection was carried out by
the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). The
inspector in his report stated that the hot water was adequate. On
September 8, 1987, a second inspection was conducted. The second
report stated that no hot water was being provided.
On October 1, 1987, the Administrator's order under Docket
No. BE 610019 HW determined that there was a failure to maintain
services in the subject building. Further, the order reduced the
rents of the rent-controlled and rent-stabilized units in the
subject premises.
On October 19, 1987, the owner filed a petition for
administrative review of the order under Docket No. BJ 630090 RO.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FC 630220 RT
On January 17, 1990, the Commissioner found that the inspection of
September 8, 1987 was made on a day when the boiler was shut off
for a cleaning with notice to the tenants. The case was then
remanded to the Administrator for reprocessing and further
inspections.
The case was reprocessed under Docket No. EA 630025 RP. On
May 29, 1990, the Administrator carried out another physical
inspection, and the inspector reported that the hot water was
adequate. Accordingly, the Administrator in his order of June 14,
1990 ordered that the prior Administrator's order (October 1, 1987
under Docket No. BE 610019 HW) be revoked.
Many of the tenants alleged that they were not served with
the Administrator's order of revocation (EA 630035 RP) previously
entered and that they were denied their right to file a petition
for review. The tenants' demand for reconsideration was granted
and the case was again reopened for reprocessing under Docket No.
FB 630004 RK. On February 26, 1991, DHCR conducted a final
physical inspection. The inspector reported that both the heat
and hot water were adequate.
In the order here under review the Administrator determined
that the Administrator's order of revocation (EA 630025 RP) should
be affirmed. However, with the consent of the owner, a revised
schedule for repayment of arrearages by the tenants was included
with the order.
The petition for administrative review filed by the tenants'
representative repeats the arguments made before the
Administrator. The tenants point to the quantity of the constant
and consistent responses from the various tenants throughout this
proceeding alleging heat or hot water reductions. Further the
tenants allege and document that the city Department of Housing
Preservation and Development (HPD) issued four hot water
violations in 1987, one in 1988 and four in 1990. The tenants
claim that this constitutes a sufficient showi g of a building-
wide reduction in services and request the reversal of the
Administrator's order and reinstatement of the original order
(October 1, 1987 under Docket No. BE 630019 HW). In the
alternative, the tenants state that they have "no objection" to a
restoration of the rents, but that such a restoration should be
prospectively applied.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petition should be denied.
In each case, the Commissioner must weigh the evidence
presented. In this case, the tenants rely predominantly on their
own statements to support their claim. While these statements are
relevant and probative, they are also the subjective statements of
parties. In such cases, impartial and corroborative evidence is
of great importance in determination of the issues. The only
corroboration in the record to support the allegations are HPD
violations covering a four year period. Each of the violations
cited by the tenants relates to a specific apartment in the
subject building rather than conditions in the building as a
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FC 630220 RT
whole. In addition, several of the violations are listed as
having been corrected soon after the violations were issued. The
Commissioner is of the opinion that there is insufficient
independent proof to sustain the allegations of a building-wide
diminution of services. In fact, it must be noted that on two
separate occasions (July 22, 1987, May 29, 1990) DHCR inspections
reported an adequate supply of hot water, and on one occasion
(February 26, 1991) a DHCR inspection reported an adequate supply
of heat and hot water. It is also noted, that these inspections
were conducted without notice to the owner.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent and
Rehabilitation Law, the Rent and Eviction Regulations, and the
Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and
the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FC 630220 RT
|
