ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 110174 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 APPEAL
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
FI 110174 RO
:
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: EH 110844 S
ALDO ARDITO
Subject Premises:
34-06 82nd St.,
Apt. No. 23
PETITIONER : Jackson Heights, NY
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on August 22,
1991, concerning the housing accommodations relating to the
above-described docket number.
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 administrative appeal.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on August 29, 1990 by
filing a complaint asserting that the owner failed to maintain
numerous services in the subject apartment, namely: that all
windows need repairs because they are unsafe, broken and
defective; that there is rat and roach infestation throughout the
apartment; that the bathroom ceiling and walls are peeling paint
and plaster; that the faucet in the bathroom sink has no water
temperature control; that the kitchen floor is "destroyed"; that
all of the cabinets by the kitchen sink are rotten and broken;
and that there are holes in the kitchen, through which rats enter
the apartment.
The Administrator's file indicates that a copy of the
tenant's complaint was mailed on October 18, 1990 to the owner's
correct address as set forth in the record.
In his answer filed on November 27, 1990, the owner denied
the allegations as set forth in the tenant's complaint and
otherwise asserted that based upon the tenant's revised list of
complaints dated November 7, 1990, repairs were performed to the
window locks, the bathroom roof, the bedroom roof and wall, the
glass of the door and the heat in the living room.
Attached to the owner's answer were copies of a letter from
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 110174 RO
an exterminator stating that the apartment was treated on
November 7, 1992; a contractor's bill dated November 22, 1990 for
repairs to the ceiling of the living room and bedroom, the walls
of the bathroom and bedroom and the windows and locks; and a bill
for repairs to the refrigerator on or about September 1990.
Thereafter, the subject apartment was physically inspected
on July 30, 1991 by a DHCR staff member who reported that there
is visible evidence of roaches and mice; that the bedroom walls
and ceiling are cracked and peeling paint and plaster; that the
kitchen floor is broken and cracked in various areas; that the
kitchen wall behind the kitchen sink has a large hole; that the
kitchen floor tiles are broken and cracked in various areas; that
the bedroom floor has a hole in the center of the room; and that
the bedroom wall is cracked in various areas.
On August 16, 1991, another physical inspection was made on
the subject apartment by a different DHCR staff member. The
inspection report added one more defective condition, i.e. that
the bathroom wall by the left side window and above the toilet is
peeling paint and plaster.
The Administrator directed restoration of these services and
a reduction of the stabilized rent.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the
conditions for which the rent was reduced were not mentioned in
the tenant's complaint and that the owner did not receive the
inspection report prior to issuance of the Administrator's order.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that this petition should be denied.
As noted above, the tenant's original complaint included the
items which were found to be defective on the July 30, 1991 and
August 16, 1991 inspections. All the items investigated by the
inspectors were included in the complaint, and the owner has not
specified either in the proceeding below or in this petition
which items were not originally complained-of.
The owner's claim that the tenant modified the complaint to
include only those items cited in the November 7, 1990 letter is
not supported by any statement by the tenant withdrawing the
original complaint and is therefore without merit.
As to the owner's entitlement to an inspection report, it is
noted that due process of law does not require the Division to
forward copies of its inspection reports to an owner prior to
making a determination that an owner has failed to maintain
required services. The owner was fully informed of the
allegations in the tenant's complaint which was sent to the
owner, properly addressed, on October 18, 1990 and the owner does
not deny receipt of the complaint. The inspection reports merely
confirmed some of the allegations made in the complaint (Empress
Manor Apartments v. DHCR, 538 N.Y.S.2d 49, 147 A.D.2d 642).
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 110174 RO
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
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
