DOC. NO.: FD 110321-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 NO.: FD 110321-RO
VIG ASSOCIATES, : DRO DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER : ED 110150-OR
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above named petitioner owner timely refiled a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order of the Rent Administrator
issued November 1, 1990. The order concerned housing accommodations
known as Apt. 509 located at 43-31 Ithaca Street, Elmhurst, N.Y. The
Administrator denied the owner's rent restoration application.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully consider that
portion of the record relevant to the issues raised by this appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an application to
restore the rent on April 24, 1990. In that application the owner
stated that the conditions which resulted in the issuance of a rent
reduction order (Docket # DD 110370-S) had been corrected and/or
restored. The owner specifically stated that all cracks had been
fixed and that the entire apartment had been plastered and painted
to the tenant's satisfaction on April 18 and 19.
The petitioner also stated that delays in restoring services were
caused by the tenant's refusal to provide access due to illness in
the tenant's family. The owner annexed a letter allegedly sent to
the tenant on April 10, 1990 wherein access was demanded in order to
paint, plaster and otherwise repair the apartment.
The tenant filed a response to the application wherein he stated
that he never received the letter the owner claims to have sent.
The tenant further stated that the apartment was painted in an
unworkmanlike manner which is why he refused to sign the work order.
The tenant denied delaying the work on the apartment.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the premises,
which was conducted on October 3, 1990.
DOC. NO.: FD 110321-RO
The inspection revealed the following:
Bathroom ceiling and walls were repaired in an
unworkmanlike manner.
Bedroom walls were repaired in an unworkmanlike manner.
Foyer walls were repaired in an unworkmanlike manner.
Livingroom ceiling was repaired in an unworkmanlike manner.
The Administrator's order duly followed.
On appeal the owner states "Tenant did not provide access to us to
fix the problems." Petitioner attached a copy of letters, dated
November 9 and 19, 1990 wherein access was demanded. The tenant did
not file a response.
After careful consideration of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The access issue presented on appeal is not relevant to the
resolution of this proceeding. Clearly, the owner's workers were
permitted access to the apartment to plaster and paint. The issue
herein concerns the workmanlike manner in which the repairs were
done. In its application, the petitioner stated that services had
been restored, which presupposes that all repairs were done in a
proper and workmanlike manner. Both the tenant and inspector
contradicted the claim. The Commissioner affords great weight to
the inspector's findings. Since the repairs were not done in a
workmanlike manner, the defective conditions were not, in fact,
repaired. The Administrator's order was based on substantial
evidence and must be affirmed.
The owner may reapply for restoration of the rent when all repairs
have been properly done.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
