FG 130218 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.: FG 130218 RO
FOOTHILL TERRACE ASSOCIATES, DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: EC 130021 B
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN PART AND REMANDING PROCEEDING TO RENT ADMINISTRATOR
On July 22, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued June 20, 1991. The order concerned housing
accommodations located at 210-34 Grand Central Parkway Queens
Village, New York. The Administrator ordered a building-wide
rent reduction due to failure to maintain required or essential
services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
The tenants commenced this proceeding by filing a Statement
of Complaint of Decrease in Building-Wide Services on March 8,
1990. The following services deficiencies were enumerated in the
complaint:
1. Front door -- broken lock; door broken for two
years.
2. Roof door -- always open.
3. Inadequate heat and hot water.
4. Lights in hallways missing.
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and
afforded an opportunity to comment thereon.
The owner filed a response on April 19, 1990 wherein it
alleged the following: that the front door was constantly checked
and repaired when necessary and that any problems were tenant
caused; that the roof door is locked by a hook and eye and is in
working order; that the heat and hot water fluctuated due to the
installation of a new water heater but, at no time, did a
services reduction occur; and that the lights were replaced on a
monthly basis and were working.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the
premises which was conducted on April 24, 1991. The inspection
revealed the following:
1.Vestibule door lock defective; it sticks
and does not latch unless pushed or pulled
when closed.
The following services were found to have been maintained:
1. Roof door locked.
2. Public area lights operative.
On June 20, 1991 the Administrator issued the order here
under review wherein a building-wide rent reduction was ordered
based on the defective door lock.
On appeal, the owner, through counsel, raises three grounds
for reversal of the Administrator's order:
1. The tenant's original complaint regarding the door
lacked the requisite specificity on the issue of
a defective lock to warrant a rent reduction.
2. The granting of a rent reduction for the defective
lock contravened DHCR policy with regard to defects
requiring routine maintenance in that such defects
do not warrant a reduction.
3. The Administrator erred in not providing the owner
with the results of the inspection report and
affording the owner 21 days to correct the problem
before issuing the order here under review.
Two tenants filed responses wherein they stated that the
door frames in question had been removed and were standing in the
hallway.
The Commissioner has carefully considered the evidence in
the record and is of the opinion that the petition should be
granted in part and the proceeding remanded to the Administrator
Addressing the owner's arguments in the order presented, the
Commissioner finds the first two to be without merit. The
tenant's complaint clearly states that the front door lock was
broken. This put the owner on notice of the existence of the
problem. Nor is the service deficiency one covered by the
doctrine of routine repair. A broken front door lock calls into
question the important issues of building security and tenant
safety. Failure to maintain an adequately locked front door is a
decrease in services warranting a rent reduction. The
Commissioner also notes that neither of these arguments was
raised by the owner in its response to the complaint.
Turning to the third point raised by the owner, i.e. failure
to afford it the opportunity to correct the problem before the
issuance of the order here under review, the Commissioner notes
that the owner did raise the argument before the Administrator,
that the tenants were responsible for the fact that the lock was
continually broken because they failed to provide keys to their
children. The owner also claimed in answer to the complaint that
the door and locks were continually checked and such repairs
continuously done when necessary. The Commissioner is of the
opinion that given the particular facts of this case in that a
recurring and tenant-caused condition was alleged regarding a
required building-wide service affecting tenant security, a
second inspection should have taken place after notice to the
owner of the results of the first inspection, before the rent
reduction was ordered. Therefore, this proceeding is remanded to
the Administrator so that an additional inspection can be ordered
to determine if the lock has been repaired. If the Administrator
so finds, based on the inspector's report, then the rent
reduction order should be revoked. If, however, the inspection
reveals that the lock is still defective, the order here under
review will remain in full force and effect from the effective
date set forth therein.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
granted in part, and that this proceeding be, and the same hereby
is, remanded to the Rent Administrator for further processing in
accordance with this Order and Opinion. The automatic stay of so
much of the Administrator's order as directed repairs and a
retroactive rent abatement is continued until a new order is
issued on remand. However, the Administrator's determination as
to a prospective rent abatement is not stayed and shall remain in
full force and effect until the Administrator issues a new order
on remand.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|