ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 610133 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 610133 RO
:
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
FD 610963 S
OUDHORAM RAGOO
SUBJECT PREMISES:
PETITIONER : 3310 Kossuth Ave.,
------------------------------------X Apt. 55
Bronx, NY
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 25, 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 26, 1991 by
filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
numerous services in the subject apartment.
In an answer filed on July 3, 1991, the owner requested "an
additional 20 days to complete all repairs."
In another answer filed on July 17, 1991, the owner explained
that the tenant caused a delay in getting the repairs done by
refusing access, that the building entrance door is repeatedly
vandalized, that cleaning and exterminating services are provided
on a routine basis, that the water pressure problem has been
repaired, and that all necessary painting and plastering has been
done. The owner submitted a copy of a contractor's June 11, 1991
bill indicating that the closet walls and ceiling were plastered
and painted and the roof was repaired, and a copy of a statement
purportedly signed by the tenant on June 10, 1991 that the ceiling
and intercom were fixed to her satisfaction.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 610133 RO
On July 18, 1991, the tenant informed the Division that "the
water pressure is bad"; that she is "unable to have steady cold and
hot water when the faucet is open"; that the building door is
broken and kept unlocked; that "the names do not appear on the
directory"; and that "the building is still kept unclean."
Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted on September 5, 1991 by a DHCR staff member who reported
that the north closet in the master bedroom is "peeling and water
damaged," "evidence of a roof leak"; and that the "bathroom shower
mixing valve is defective, water is very difficult to regulate."
Based on the inspection, the Administrator ordered a reduction
of the stabilized rent.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner
reiterates in substance his answer in the proceeding below,
contending that the tenant delayed the repairs; and that on June
10, 1991, the tenant signed an acknowledgment of repairs. The
owner submitted copies of the same papers as in the proceeding
below.
In answer, the tenant states that the problems of the leak and
the water pressure still exist and that the Administrator's order
is correctly based on the physical inspection.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that this petition should be denied.
Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code requires DHCR to
reduce the rent, upon application by the tenant, based upon a
finding that the owner has failed to maintain required services.
Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include all
services which the owner was maintaining or was required to
maintain on the applicable base date plus additional services
provided or required to be provided thereafter by applicable law.
In the instant case, the physical inspection confirmed the
existence of defective conditions cited in the tenant's complaint
and, based on this inspection, the rent reduction ordered by the
Administrator was warranted.
The owner's petition does not present any basis for revoking
the appealed order. The tenant's signature on copies of the
owner's work order form dated June 10, 1991 and the contractor's
June 11, 1991 bill do not establish that all repairs were completed
in an effective and workmanlike manner. The record shows that on
July 18, 1991, the tenant informed the Division of the continued
existence of several defective conditions, including the water
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 610133 RO
pressure problem which was not included on any repair bills or work
orders and which was confirmed by the subsequent inspector.
Moreover, if the conditions for which the rent was reduced had in
fact been corrected properly in June 1991 as the owner contends,
the physical inspection on September 5, 1991 would not have found
them to be defective.
The owner is advised to file a rent restoration application
when all repairs are completed.
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, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
