FF110170RO
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 S.J.R. NO.:
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE 5942 Court Remit
APPEAL OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
DOCKET NO.:
RICHARD ALBERT, FF110170RO
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER DB110805S
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
AND REVOKING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On June 13, 1991, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
April 4, 1991, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as Apartment 3-C, 94-03 222nd Street, Queens,
New York, wherein the Administrator ordered a reduction in the
legal regulated rent and directed the owner to restore services
that an inspection revealed were not being maintained.
The Commissioner issued an order on July 12, 1991 dismissing the
owner's petition as untimely.
Subsequent thereto, the owner filed petition for judicial review
of the Commissioner's order pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil
Practice Law and Rules. In an order dated June 23, 1992, the
Supreme Court, Queens County, (DiTucci, J.) remanded the proceeding
to the Division for a decision on the merits.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered those portions of the record relevant to
the issue raised by the administrative appeal.
The record reveals that the tenant filed a complaint on February
10, 1989 alleging that the existing security intercom system in the
tenant's apartment is inoperable, that the owner's electrician had
recently cut off part of the intercom while repairing the door
bell, and that a violation had been issued by the Office of Code
Enforcement (OEC) for this condition.
FF110170RO
In answer to the complaint the owner stated that it had been estab-
lished in other proceedings before the Division that a working
intercom is not a required service in the subject building.
An inspection of the apartment on March 25, 1991 revealed that the
intercom was not working and window screens were missing in the
master and second bedroom. The inspector also reported that there
was no evidence of peeling paint and plaster in the dining room or
living room, and that the door bell was working but that the tenant
did not have a buzzer system.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner asserts in
substance that the tenant's complaint referred only to the intercom
which the owner stated, in answer to the complaint and again on
appeal, is not a required service.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the Commis-
sioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted and
the Rent Administrator's order should be revoked.
The complaint served on the owner mentioned only the intercom.
There is another complaint in the file dated November 10, 1988 but
it is not stamped received by the Division and there is no evidence
that it was served on the owner. The inspection of items other
than the intercom was improper as was the inclusion of these items
in the rent reduction order. The finding regarding the intercom
was also incorrect, given the Division's determination in other
proceedings that an intercom is not a required service in the
subject building.
The rent reduction order is revoked. Any rent arrears due as a
result of this order may be paid back in twelve monthly
installments.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent the Rent Stabilization Law
and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is granted, and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
revoked.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
