ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 110146 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.:
FJ 110146 RO
:
DISTRICT RENT ADMIN.
DOCKET NO.: ED 110361 S
ARJAM MIRCHANDANI, SUBJECT PREMISES:
132-35 Sanford Ave.,
PETITIONER : Apt. No. 516,
------------------------------------X Flushing, New York
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued on September 20, 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 petition.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on April 13, 1990 by
filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
numerous services in the subject apartment.
A copy of the tenant's complaint was transmitted by mail to
the owner on May 1,1990 and June 27, 1991. The Administrator's
file does not contain any answer by the owner to these
transmittals.
Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted on September 6, 1991 by a DHCR staff member who confirmed
the existence of defective conditions.
The Administrator directed restoration of these services and
further ordered a reduction of the stabilized rent.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 110146 RO
In his petition for administrative review, the owner states
that "all of the issues in reference to this docket were complied
with prior to the issuance of the rent reduction order." There
appears to be no submission of any evidence to support this
allegation by the owner.
In answer to the petition, the tenant replies that "there is
not any action taken after this notice or after the inspection" and
that defective conditions continue to exist.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that this petition should be denied.
The owner's allegation in the petition that repairs were
performed prior to the issuance of the Administrator's order is
unsubstantiated and therefore without merit. The owner submitted
no evidence to support his allegation. The owner's claim that
repairs were done is also disputed by the tenant who answered the
petition, stating that the owner has done nothing. Moreover, a
copy of the tenant's complaint was transmitted by mail to the owner
on May 1, 1990 and June 27, 1991 and more than a year had passed
from the initial date of service of the tenant's complaint until
the inspection took place. Despite such ample opportunity, the
owner failed to investigate the tenant's complaint and to make the
necessary repairs.
The Commissioner therefore finds that the Administrator
properly based his determination on the entire record, including
the results of the on-site physical inspection conducted on
September 6, 1991; and that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the
Code, the rent reduction ordered by the Administrator is warranted.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the
owner's right to file the appropriate application with the Division
for restoration of rent based upon 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,
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 110146 RO
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
