ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 510237 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.:
FI 510237 RO
: DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
FD 510743 S
MATILDA AND MIKLOS KISS
SUBJECT PREMISES: Apt. 64,
517 West 169th St., New
York, NY
PETITIONERS :
-------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owners filed a timely Petition for
Administrative Review of an order issued on August 30, 1991,
concerning the housi g 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 petition.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on April 22, 1991 by
filing a complaint asserting that the owners had failed to
maintain numerous services in the subject apartment.
It appears from the Administrator's file that on May 2,
1991, a copy of the tenant's complaint and the owners' answer
forms were supposed to have been mailed to the owner. However,
the owners were apparently not served because the tenant instead
responded on May 8, 1991 by stating on the forms which the owners
would normally use, that defective conditions continue to exist.
Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the subject apartment
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 510237 RO
was conducted on July 23, 1991 by a DHCR staff member who
reported that the oven knob does not ignite the pilot or
thermostat in the defective stove; that the bathroom ceiling
leaks and has evidence of water damage; that the west window of
the living room does not close properly, i.e. the top part casing
of the lower sash is not self-closing; and that the kitchen
window sash and frame show air seepage.
A search of DHCR records shows that the service date on the
owners was August 20, 1991; and that in their answer filed on
August 26, 1991, the owners denied the allegations as set forth
in the tenant's complaint and otherwise asserted that all
required services are being provided. The owners further stated
that no prior complaint had been received from the tenant, other
than a letter from the Legal Aid Society questioning an MCI rent
increase; that the tenant was given a new stove in 1987 as an
attached invoice establishes; that the building has a new roof
and new windows as confirmed by two MCI rent increase orders; and
that the tenant caused these defective conditions. According to
the owners, the tenant "permits her apartment to become a
shooting gallery for intravenous drug users", thus allowing the
plumbing to clog due to "drug users flushing needles, paper,
glass vials etc.", and flooding down water from her apartment to
the apartments below her. The owners submitted letters from the
Manhattan District Attorney, listing other apartments in the
subject building where drug dealing allegedly occurred. The
owners further submitted a copy of a letter dated October 14,
1987 addressed to the tenant, warning the tenant of alleged noise
and many visitors in the subject apartment.
Within four days of the owners' filing an answer, the
Administrator issued an order solely based on the July 23, 1991
physical inspection directing restoration of services and a
reduction of the stabilized rent.
In this petition, the owners contend that they were not
afforded ample opportunity to cure the defective conditions
because the rent reduction order was issued on August 30, 1991,
about five days from the August 26, 1991 filing of their answer;
and that court stipulations dated August 29, 1991 and September
20, 1991 settling a housing court proceeding have resolved this
matter. In No. 3 of the September 20, 1991 stipulation, the
tenant, represented by an attorney, acknowledged repairs of
defective conditions which were the basis of the rent reduction
order appealed herein.
On November 14, 1991, the tenant filed an answer to the
owner's petition, objecting to it on the ground that several
conditions, most of which were not mentioned in the original
complaint, have not yet been repaired.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petition should be granted and the
Administrator's order revoked.
It appears that the owners were not served with a copy of
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 510237 RO
the tenant's complaint until August 20, 1991 and that the owners'
answer filed on August 26, 1991 is extremely close to the August
30, 1991 issuance of the order appealed from; and that the
Administrator may not have considered the owners' answer in the
determination.
Despite the tenant's objection to the petition, the
Commissioner finds that the tenant, represented by an attorney,
acknowledged that all repairs were done in the copies of court
stipulations dated August 26, 1991 and September 20, 1991. The
tenant does not repudiate her signature on the September 20, 1991
stipulation or explain the discrepancy between her acknowledgment
therein that the owner had completed all repairs and her answer
now that certain repairs are still required. Accordingly, the
Commissioner finds that the rent reduction should be revoked,
and the tenant may file an new complaint with the Division
regarding the conditions cited in her answer if they remain
defective.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
granted, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, revoked.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
