FF 110117-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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.: FF 110117-RO;
FF 110118-RO; FF 110119-RO;
FF 110123-RO; FF 110124-RO;
FF 110125-RO; FF 110126-RO;
FF 110127-RO; FF 110128-RO;
FF 110129-RO; FF 110130-RO;
JAIME ASSOCIATES, FF 110131-RO; FF 110132-RO;
FF 110133-RO; FF 110134-RO;
FF 110135-RO; FF 110136-RO;
FF 110137-RO; FF 110138-RO;
FF 110139-RO; FF 110140-RO;
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NOS. :
ED 110941-S ; ED 110944-S ;
ED 110948-S ; ED 110949-S ;
ED 110950-S ; ED 110951-S ;
ED 110954-S ; ED 110955-S ;
ED 110957-S ; ED 110960-S ;
ED 110961-S ; ED 110963-S ;
ED 110964-S ; ED 110965-S ;
ED 110968-S ; ED 110970-S ;
ED 110971-S ; ED 110972-S ;
ED 110973-S ; ED 110974-S ;
EE 110536-S
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The Commissioner has consolidated these cases as they involve
common questions of law and fact.
The above named petitioner-owner filed timely petitions for
administrative review against orders of the Rent Administrator
which ordered rent reductions based on decreased apartment
services. The orders concerned Apartments 6-M, 4-K, 6-C, 5-S,
5-R, 2-A, 3-B, 4-E, 3-F, 3-L, 2-N, 3-P, 5-P, 1-R, 1-E, 4-D, 1-A,
4-R, 3-H and 3-A located at 102-30 Queens Boulevard, Forest
Hills, New York.
Each of the 21 tenants commenced these proceedings by filing
identical complaints alleging decreased apartment services. Each
tenant complained that the installation of new windows was defec
tive. Specifically the tenants complained that:
FF 110117-RO, et al.
1. Wood window trims were never painted.
2. Gouges in existing window bucks not sanded
and painted.
3. Window caulking not properly done.
4. Windows improperly balanced.
5. Window bottoms fly up and out of channel when
open inward.
6. Springs in channel pop-off need special tool
to resecure.
7. Tilt latches not working.
8. Windows slide open by themselves after clos-
ure.
The tenants alleged that the owner has been notified of the
defective conditions but has not attempted to recti y the prob-
lems. The tenants requested a rent reduction.
Petitioner responded to each complaint alleging that the build-
ing-wide window installation was completed in August 1989. The
contractors were called back for adjustments. Petitioner
claimed that adjustments were made on May 19 and 21, 1990. The
owner submitted what he claimed was a statement signed by each
tenant, dated July 23, 1990, stating that the windows are
functioning properly.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspecti n of each apart-
ment. Said inspections were conducted. The inspectors found:
1. Windows in need of caulking,
2. window trims in need of painting,
3. defective sashes,
4. windows failing to close properly and
5. defective window latches and locks.
The orders appealed from were duly issued granting the requested
rent reduction.
The owner filed identical petitions for review of each order al-
leging that:
1. The window problems have been corrected to
the tenant's satisfaction as indicated by the
tenant's signed statement of July 1990.
2. Contrary to DHCR's procedures, the owner was
not given 21 days to correct the inspector's
findings, nor was a copy of the inspector's
report supplied, prior to the Administrator
denying the reduction.
3. Adjustment of windows, molding, painting,
caulking, and smoothing are not services re-
ductions.
Petitioner's contention that the windows have been repaired to
FF 110117-RO, et al.
the tenants' satisfaction is rebutted by the results of the
twenty one physical inspections conducted by an agency employee.
The purported tenants' statements relied on by the owner consist
of a page in a ledger book with tenant names and signatures under
a column heading stating "windows are functioning properly." The
upper right hand corner bears the date July 23, 1990. It cannot
be determined from this document that the tenants whose signa-
tures appear in the column knew what they were signing, that
they actually signed it on July 23, 1990, and that they intended
to withdraw their complaints. Accordingly, the Commissioner
finds that the purported tenants' statements have no probative
value, especially when contradicted by the physical inspection
and when unaccompanied by any other evidence showing when and by
whom repairs were made.
DHCR records indicate that petitioner was properly served with
copies of the tenants' complaints. This service in July 1990,
afforded the owner the notice and opportunity to correct the win
dow problems that were the subject of the complaints but when the
physical inspection took place in April 1990, the repairs had not
been made. Due process does not require that the owner be served
with a copy of the inspection report that confirms the existence
of the conditions contained in the complaint. The tenants were
entitled to the installation of fully functional and properly
installed windows. The Administrator correctly determined that
the deficiencies noted by the inspectors were services decreases
for which reductions in rent were warranted.
This order is without prejudice to the owner's right to file for
restoration of the rent after all the necessary repairs have been
completed. The owner is advised that the inclusion of restora-
ation applications with the petitions for administrative review
does not constitute a proper filing.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
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:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
