FG 420237-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 420237-RO
GRC CORPORATION, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER FC 420332-S
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING THE PROCEEDING TO THE
RENT ADMINISTRATOR
On July 12, 1991 the above-named owner filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on June 13, 1991 by a
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation, known as
Apartment 1-W, 410 East 83rd Street, New York, New York, wherein
rent was reduced due to a diminution of service.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant
to the issues raised by the petition for review.
On March 12, 1991 the subject tenant filed an application for a
rent reduction based on the owner's alleged failure to maintain
service alleging inter alia peeling paint and cracked plaster in
the kitchen and living room, and a missing bathroom sink.
On March 22, 1991 a copy of the tenant's complaint was mailed to
the owner at the address furnished by the tenant - 147 West 42nd
Street.
On May 8, 1991 a copy of the tenant's complaint was mailed to the
owner at its correct address - 120 West 44th Street, and the
owner was afforded twenty-one days within which to interpose an
answer thereto.
On May 21, 1991 a physical inspection of the subject apartment
was carried out by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR). The inspector, in his report, noted that the complained
of conditions were as alleged by the tenant.
On May 22, 1991 the owner interposed an answer to the tenant's
complaint wherein it requested a thirty day extension of time
within which to interpose an amplified answer and submit documen
tation.
FG 420237-RO
On June 13, 1991 the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review finding that a diminution of services had occurred
and reducing the tenant's monthly rental by eighteen dollars.
In its petition for administrative review, the owner requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order alleging that it had
requested an extension of time within which o answer by tele-
phone and was assured that there would be "no problem." and that
pursuant to instructions from the DHCR, it mailed its extension
request to the Administrator. The owner further alleges inter
alia that all of the conditions complained of have been recti-
fied, completed, and no longer exist.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be remanded to the Rent Administrator
for further processing.
The Commissioner notes that the owner was notified of the missing
wash basin in the tenant's bathroom on August 25, 1987 by the New
York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development
(HPD) and was later notified on July 27, 1989 by the HPD of the
dampness penetrating the kitchen walls and of the need for
painting throughout the apartment. On March 1, 1991 the owner
was notified by HPD that the plaster conditions in the tenant's
apartment were "hazardous" and "immediately hazardous." The
Commissioner notes that all of these violations and notifications
thereof occurred prior to the tenant's filing of a complaint with
this Division.
The Commissioner also notes that an inspection carried out on May
21, 1991 by this Division corroborated the tenant's allegations
of defective conditions.
The Commissioner further notes that the owner's May 22, 1991
letter did not reach the Rent Administrator prior to the issuance
of the order under review and that the owner was deprived of the
opportunity to amplify its answer. Accordingly, the Commissioner
finds that this proceeding should be remanded for the purpose of
affording the owner the opportunity to submit further evidence of
services being provided including proof of correction of the
cited items. If, on remand, the owner proves that conditions
were corrected prior to the issuance of the Rent Administrator's
order (June 13, 1991), then the rent reduction should be revoked
nunc pro tunc.
The Commissioner finally notes that, to date, the owner has
offered no evidence to substantiate its assertion of repair or
correction of the cited conditions.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations
for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that this proceeding be, and the same hereby is, re-
FG 420237-RO
manded to the Rent Administrator for further processing in
accordance with this order and opinion. The previously issued
order remains in full force and effect until a new order is
issued on remand.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
