FG 610317 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 610317 RO
2200 REALTY CO. RENT
C/O J.K. MANAGEMENT CO. ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: EH 630135 B
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 24, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner timely
refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of
the Rent Administrator issued May 13, 1991. The order concerned
various housing accommodations located at 2200 Morris Avenue,
Bronx, N.Y. The Administrator ordered a building-wide rent
reduction for failure to maintain required services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
This proceeding was commenced August 22, 1990 when 22 of the
44 tenants of the building filed a Statement of Complaint of
Decrease in Building-Wide Services wherein they alleged the
following services deficiencies:
1. Boiler only functions sporadically,
2. Doors continually open because locks not
functioning,
3. Elevators out of order.
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded
an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on September
24, 1990 and stated that the boiler is in good working order and is
promptly repaired if it breaks down, that the elevator is also in
good working order and that there is a new entrance door in the
building with secure locks. The owner attached copies of letters
from an elevator maintenance and a heating company which were
offered to show that the elevator and boiler are functioning
properly and are repaired immediately upon breakdown. The owner
also enclosed a bill for new elevator parts.
FG 610317 RO
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspection was conducted on October 18, 1990 and
revealed the following:
1. Vestibule door lock missing,
2. Bell and buzzer system inoperative,
3. South elevator third floor door is dislocated,
4. North elevator lobby door does not open and close
automatically.
On October 29, 1990 the Administrator sent the owner a notice
detailing the report of the inspector and affording the owner 20
days to make repairs and provide the Administrator with proof of
the fact that repairs had been made. On November 6, 1990 the owner
filed a response to the Administrator's notice. The owner stated
that a lock had been installed on the vestibule door, that a
contractor had been retained to provide an estimate for the
installation of an intercom system as well as the repair of the
bell and buzzer system, and that the elevators had been repaired.
The owner attached bills from the elevator repair company for the
work done, as well as a note from the company providing the
estimate for the intercom system.
The Administrator order a re-inspection of the subject
building. The inspector visited the building on January 6, 7, and
14, 1991 and reported the following:
1. Bell and buzzer system inoperative,
2. Vestibule door lock removed.
The inspector reported that the elevators were operative.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on May
13, 1991 based on the report of the inspector. With regard to the
issue of the defective boiler, the Administrator directed the
tenants to file a complaint either with the New York City Office of
Code Enforcement or a heat and hot water complaint with the DHCR.
A rent reduction equal to the most recent guideline adjustment was
ordered for rent stabilized tenants. A rent reduction of $12.00
per month was ordered for rent controlled tenants.
On appeal the owner states that the vestibule door lock has
been replaced. The owner also states that the bell and buzzer
system has been reconnected and asserts that it was disconnected on
the Bronx District Attorney's order to abate drug activity in the
building. The owner attached to the petition an invoice dated June
6, 1991 regarding the installation of a new panel for the buzzer
FG 610317 RO
system and a new door opener.
Various tenants filed responses wherein they stated, in sum,
that services had not been restored. The owner filed replies on
February 10, 1992 and May 6, 1992 wherein it essentially restated
the allegations set forth in the petition for administrative review
and annexed additional invoices regarding various repairs all dated
subsequent to the issuance of the rent reduction order.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The relevant inquiry in deciding this administrative appeal is
whether the Administrator was correct in issuing the order here
under review based on the evidence in the record at the time of
issuance. The Commissioner finds that the Administrator was
correct. It is settled law that the report of a DHCR inspector is
entitled to more probative weight than the unsupported allegations
of a party to the proceeding. The owner herein was afforded notice
of the initial report of the inspector and an opportunity to
correct the conditions set forth in the Administrator's notice. The
re-inspection, conducted on three different days in January, 1991,
clearly showed that the necessary repairs had not been done. The
evidence of repairs submitted by the owner with the petition all
post date the issuance of the order and therefore do not establish
that the order was incorrect when issued.
Pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2523.4 a rent stabilized tenant may apply
to the DHCR for a rent reduction and the Division is required to
order a rent reduction based upon a finding that the owner has
failed to maintain required services. Repairs and maintenance fall
within the definition of required services pursuant to 9 NYCRR
2520.6 (r). For rent controlled tenants the Administrator is
empowered by 9 NYCRR 2202.16 to order a decrease in the maximum
rent based on the reasonable exercise of discretion. As stated
above, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator based this
determination on the entire record including the results of several
on-site physical inspections which revealed that required services
were not being maintained. The order here under review is
affirmed.
The Commissioner notes that the owner filed for rent
restoration (see Docket No. FG 630163 OR) and that this application
was denied by the Administrator on March 26, 1992. The owner has
reapplied for rent restoration (see Docket No. GE 630142 OR). Said
application is currently pending before the DHCR.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and
Rent and Eviction Regulations it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
FG 610317 RO
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
