ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FJ 210160 RO & GB 210160 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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.:
FJ 210160 RO,
GB 210160 RO
:
RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NOS.: FC 210500 S,
FE 210035 S
383-17 ASSOCIATES,
SUBJECT PREMISES:
PETITIONER : 383 East 17th Street,
------------------------------------X Apt. No. 6H,
Brooklyn, New York
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed timely petitions for
administrative review of orders issued on September 25, 1991 and
January 23, 1992 concerning the housing accommodations relating to
the above-described docket numbers, wherein a rent reduction was
ordered based on a finding that the owner had failed to maintain
required services.
These petitions are being consolidated pursuant to Section
2529.1 of the Rent Stabilization Code because they involve common
issues of law and fact.
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 these petitions.
On March 19, 1991 and May 1, 1991, the tenant filed complaints
asserting that the owner had failed to maintain numerous services
in the subject apartment.
In its answers filed on May 30, 1991 and July 17, 1991, the
owner asserted that many items are duplicated in the two-
complaints; that some of the defective conditions had been repaired
completely; and that repairs are being performed on other defective
conditions. The owner submitted copies of work orders signed by
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FJ 210160 RO & GB 210160 RO
the tenant on May 28, 1991 under the statement "The above work has
been completed to my satisfaction," referring to repairs to the
stove, refrigerator, bathroom sink, windows, intercom, mailbox,
front door, hallway walls and removal of soot and mildew in
closets.
On September 9, 1991, a physical inspection of the subject
apartment was conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported that
the hallway ceiling had water stains; that the dining room ceiling
had peeling paint and plaster; that the children's room lower right
wall had water stains; and that there were mice and roach droppings
in the kitchen area.
On September 25, 1991, the Administrator issued an order under
Docket Number FC 210500 S, finding that the owner was not
maintaining the aforementioned services and ordering a reduction of
the stabilized rent.
On December 26, 1991, another on-site inspection of the
subject apartment was conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported
that two living room windows were hard to open; that two master
bedroom windows were hard to open and were not balanced; that the
master bedroom closet wall had mildew stains; and that there were
roach and mice droppings observed in the living room and kitchen
area.
On January 23, 1992, the Administrator issued another order
under Docket Number FE 210035 S, directing the restoration of
services by repairing the master bedroom closet wall and the
windows, and ordering a reduction of the stabilized rent. The
finding regarding roach and mice droppings was not included because
it was duplicated in the other proceeding.
In the owner's petitions for administrative review of the
September 25, 1991 and January 23, 1992 orders, the owner contends
in substance that the orders are unclear, vague and duplicative;
that copies of work orders signed by the tenant on May 28, 1991
show the tenant's satisfaction with the repairs; that if the
conditions as part of normal maintenance had recurred, DHCR and the
tenant were obligated to inform the owner of the recurrence; and
that once the Administrator had received the signed work orders
submitted by the owner, the order appealed from should not have
been issued.
In answer to the petitions, the tenant denies signing work
orders and claims that many conditions have still not been
repaired.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that these petitions should be denied.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FJ 210160 RO & GB 210160 RO
Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code requires DHCR,
upon application by a tenant, to reduce the rent for the period for
which it is found that the owner has failed to maintain required
services. Required services are defined by Section 2520.6(r) to
include repairs and maintenance.
In the instant case, the two physical inspections of the
subject apartment on September 9 and December 26, 1991 confirmed
the existence of defective conditions for which the rent reduction
ordered by the Administrator is warranted. (The parties are
advised that even though two rent reduction orders were issued, the
rent is reduced by only one guideline adjustment, effective as of
the earlier effective date of April 1, 1991 and may not be
increased until all conditions cited in both orders are corrected,
and DHCR has issued rent restoration orders for both proceedings.)
The work orders, which the owner claims mandate revocation of
the rent reductions, do not refer to all the conditions for which
the rent was reduced. They do not, for example, mention the water-
stained areas in the hallway and children's room, or the
infestation of mice and roaches. In addition, these work orders
were submitted by the owner, the tenant's signature was never
verified and the tenant has denied signing them. Moreover, even if
the tenant did acknowledge certain repairs in May 1991, the
physical inspections conducted by DHCR a few months later found
evidence of defective conditions, indicating that repairs could not
have been done in a workmanlike and effective manner.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the
owner's rights as they may pertain to a de novo application to the
Division for a restoration of rents based upon the restoration of
services.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,
denied, and the Administrator's orders be, and the same hereby are,
affirmed.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FJ 210160 RO & GB 210160 RO
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
