FI 110072 RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF : DOCKET NO.: FI 110072-RO
: DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
VAN KLEECK ASSOCIATES, : DOCKET NO.: FC 110403-S
: SUBJECT PREMISES:
: 51-25 Van Kleeck St., Apt. No. 4M
PETITIONER : Elmhurst, N.Y. 11373
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely Petition for Administrative
Review of an order issued on August 5, 1991, concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
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 this proceeding on March 19, 1991 by filing a
complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain numerous
services in the subject apartment, including inter alia roach
infestation. The complainant-tenant was named and signed as
Narendra Tilani, who stated that she and her small children are
inconvenienced by the decreased services.
In its answer filed on April 17, 1991, the owner denied the
allegations set forth in the tenant's complaint and otherwise
asserted that all required services are being provided; that the
tenant only has to contact the owner if repairs have to be done;
and that the tenant never requested for repairs.
In another answer filed on July 8, 1991, the owner alleged that
all the requested repairs cited in the complaint had already been
done. The owner submitted a form statement from the tenant that
work had allegedly been completed; the alleged tenant's signature
was not a signature but a printed "KAVITA Mrs. Tilani" which is
dissimilar to the tenant's name and signature of "Narendra Tilani"
in the original tenant's complaint.
The owner filed again on July 22, 1991 a statement that "the
tenant is happy and satisfied with the maintenance service being
provided and all the necessary work has already been completed."
The owner submitted a prepared, typewritten statement dated July
10, 1991 indicating such tenant's satisfaction and withdrawal of
the complaint, wherein the tenant's signature is "KAVITA TILANI"
and not "NARENDRA TILANI" who signed the original complaint.
FI 110072 RO
There is, however, no doubt about the subject premises and to
docket numbers of the order appealed from.
Thereafter, the subject apartment was inspected on July 25, 1991
by a DHCR staff member who reported "evidence of roach
Based on said inspection, the Administrator directed on
restoration of services and a reduction of the stabilized rent.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that it was not
informed of the defective conditions by the tenant; that these
conditions "were immediately attended to" when DHCR informed the
owner; that the tenant withdrew the complaint before the
inspection and the order's issuance; and that the conditions are
minor, not warranting a rent reduction.
It appears from the Administrator's file that a copy of the
owner's petition was mailed to the tenant on October 17, 1991.
On April 3, 1992, the tenant(s) (Narendra/Kavita Tilani) were
requested by the Division to authenticate their signature in the
alleged withdrawal of the complaint signed by "Kavita Tilani" and
an alleged, completed work order signed also by "Kavita Tilani."
Said letter to the tenants states that "(f)ailure to file an
answer within twenty days from the date appearing on this notice
(i.e. April 3, 1992) shall be considered a default and may result
in a determination based on the record presently before the
agency." The time limit has expired and the tenant(s) has not
responded to the Divisions' request.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The record establishes that the owner was notified of the tenant's
complaint and that in response thereto, the owner performed
repairs in the subject apartment. The tenant(s) "Tilani" appear
to have been satisfied with the repairs. However, the tenant's
statement that work was completed and that the complaint should be
withdrawn in view thereof was signed by a "Kavita" Tilani, not
Narendra Tilani who signed the original complaint. Despite ample
opportunity to the tenant(s) in the subject premises to verify
their signatures in the owner-submitted documents, the tenants
defaulted and the Commissioner shall make a determination based
on the present record.
FI 110072 RO
Certainly, physical inspection revealed that the owner failed to
address all the defective conditions enumerated in the tenant's
complaint. Roach infestation existed in the subject apartment of
the Tilani's, regardless of whether "Kavita" and "Narendra" signed
the prepared typewritten statement that work was completed and the
complaint should be withdrawn. This infestation is not a minor
matter, but a decreased service warranting a rent reduction.
It is noted that a finding of decreased services attaches to the
subject apartment and not to the resident(s) thereof. A copy of
this Order and Opinion shall be mailed to the present resident(s)
of this apartment.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the tenant(s)' withdrawal
of the complaint in the proceeding below is not sufficiently clear
to rebut the findings of the July 25, 1991 on-site inspection.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner