FH 210275 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.: FH 210275 RO
DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
WILMAUD REALTY CORP./PETER SHAW, DOCKET NOS.: ZBJ 210733-S
BJ 210733-S
SUBJECT PREMISES:
305 MARTENSE ST., APT. NO. 2G
PETITIONER BROOKLYN, N.Y. 11226
----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely Petition for Administrative
Review of an order issued on July 24, 1991 concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to
the issues raised by the petition.
The tenant commenced the original proceeding below on October 28,
1987 by filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to
maintain certain services in the subject apartment.
The owner was informed of the tenant's complaint in November 1987,
but failed to respond promptly.
DHCR inspected the subject apartment on January 11, 1988,
disclosing numerous defective conditions.
In its answer filed on February 15, 1988, the owner asserted that
"(a)ll necessary repairs in the apartment ha(d) been made."
On May 15, 1988, the tenant wrote DHCR that the complaint "ha(d)
not been resolved."
Thereafter, various inspections were scheduled but appear not to
have occurred. The record only reveals a January 11, 1988
inspection as stated above.
Based on the January 11, 1988 inspection, the Administrator
issued on July 20, 1988 the first order, directing restoration of
services and reduction of the stabilized rent effective February
1, 1988.
FH 210275 RO
On a September 20, 1988, the tenant filed an Affirmation of Non-
Compliance with DHCR.
Inspection requests appear to have been made at this time.
However, no inspection was made then.
In September 1989, DHCR informed the owner to address the
complained-of conditions, while DHCR also inquired from the tenant
as to the status of the case. The record shows no response to
these letters.
DHCR again sent on April 16, 1990 inquiry letters to the parties
involved.
The owner filed an answer on June 27, 1990, indicating that it
spent "a considerable sum of money upgrading and renovating the
building," including the subject apartment.
This apartment was inspected on August 15, 1990 by DHCR which
confirmed the existence of numerous defective conditions.
On July 24, 1991, the Administrator directed restoration of these
services and reduction of the stabilized rent. The
Administrator's order reflected the effective date of February 1,
1988, voiding and superseding the previous order under the same
above-described docket number issued on July 20, 1988.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that repairs had
been completed after the August 15, 1990 inspection and prior to
issuance of the Administrator's order; and that the owner is
attending to other tenant's complaints.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
Although the owner contends that repairs had been completed after
the inspection and prior to issuance of the Administrator's order,
the owner failed to raise this contention before the
Administrator. The owner had twelve months after the inspection
to inform the Administrator of these alleged repairs; but despite
due notice, the owner failed to do so. The owner now raises this
self-serving contention for the first time on appeal. Thus, this
contention is beyond the scope of review which is limited to the
issues and evidence before the Administrator.
The owner had been duly notified of the complained-of conditions
since November 1987, but the owner failed to resolve the matter
inspite of numerous inquiry letters. An August 15, 1990
inspection disclosed that services had not yet been restored.
Accordingly, the Administrator had properly determined that
inspection found decreased services, warranting rent reduction.
FH 210275 RO
The Commissioner notes that in this petition, the owner admits
that repairs are still being made and not yet completed. This
Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner filing
an application for rent restoration based on the restoration of
services, if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
