ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FE 110355-RO ET AL.
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.:
FE 110355-RO; FE 110357-RO;
FE 110358-RO; FE 110359-RO;
FE 110360-RO; FE 110361-RO;
FE 110362-RO; FE 110363-RO;
FE 110365-RO; FE 110366-R0;
JAIME ASSOCIATES, : FE 110367-RO; FE 110368-RO;
FE 110369-RO
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NOS.:
ED 110942-S; ED 110943-S;
ED 110945-S; ED 110946-S;
ED 110947-S; ED 110952-S;
PETITIONER : ED 110953-S; ED 110956-S;
------------------------------------X ED 110958-S; ED 110959-S;
ED 110962-S; ED 110967-S;
ED 110976-S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named petitioner owner filed timely individual
Petitions for Administrative Review appealing orders issued by the
Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York, which
determined identical complaints filed by the tenants alleging that
the installation of new windows was defective.
In response to the tenants' complaints, the owner stated that
the installation was completed in August 1989 and that the window
contractor was called back for adjustment on May 19 and 21, 1990.
The owner also submitted a statement signed by each tenant, dated
July 23, 1990, asserting that the windows were functioning
properly.
However, inspection of each apartment confirmed some of the
following conditions in every apartment:
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FE 110355-RO ET AL.
1. Windows in need of caulking.
2. Window trims requiring caulking.
3. Defective window sashes.
4. Windows that failed to close properly.
5. Defective window latches and locks.
Accordingly, the Administrator issued orders granting each
tenant a rent abatement retroactive to the first month following
the service of the tenants' complaints on the owner.
In each appeal, the owner reiterates assertions below that the
window problems were corrected to the tenants' satisfaction, as
indicated by each tenant's signature on the statement of July 23,
1990.
The owner also argues that he was not given the opportunity to
correct the conditions, as he was not served a copy of the
inspector's findings.
Lastly, the owner disputes that failure to adjust windows and
moldings, and to paint, caulk and smooth the windows constitute
services reductions.
Petitioner's contention that the windows were adequately
repaired is rebutted by the results of inspections conducted by
agency staff. The tenants' statements relied on by the owner
consists of a list in a ledger book with tenants' names and their
signatures under a column heading stating "windows are functioning
properly"; the upper right hand corner bears the date July 23,
1990. This document is not sufficient to establish that the
tenants signed on July 23, 1990, or that the tenants intended to
withdraw their complaints. In light of the inspections, and in the
absence of evidence that repairs were made, the tenants' signed
statements are not dispositive.
The petitioner's claim of lack of due process is rejected.
The owner was afforded due notice by service of the tenants'
complaints. Also the Division's procedures do not require the
Administrator to give the owner notice of the results of an
inspection prior to the issuance of an order.
It is further noted that the Court has affirmed the Division's
determination in identical proceedings concerning the owner and
other tenants in the subject accommodations. Jaime Associates v.
DHCR, Index No. 25062/91, Sup. Ct., Queens Co., May 15, 1992
(Graci, J.)
THEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FE 110355-RO ET AL.
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,
denied and that the Rent Administrator's orders be, and the same
hereby are, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|