ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 630059 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 630059 RO
:
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: EE 630063 B
JOHN HOLWELL
SUBJECT PREMISES:
2297 Sedgwick Ave.,
PETITIONER : Bronx, NY
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN PART AND MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued on September 12, 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.
Four tenants commenced this proceeding on May 18, 1990 by
filing separate complaints alleging a decrease in building-wide
services. One of the tenants (Apt. # 1S) complained of inadequate
hot water and security (defective front door). The other three
tenants each alleged deficient hot water services.
In his answer filed on June 14, 1990, the owner denied that
the hot water service is inadequate and otherwise asserted that the
front door is in the process of being repaired and the repairs
would be completed shortly.
Thereafter, the subject building was physically inspected on
August 19, 1991 by a DHCR staff member who reported that the
building entrance door is not secure, with a broken cylinder and
missing parts in the lock; and that the vestibule door is not
secure, with the door lock missing parts and not operating.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 630059 RO
In the order appealed herein, the Administrator reduced the
stabilized rent of the four tenants who filed complaints, citing
the "Door Lock Vestibule" as a service not being maintained.
In this petition, the owner, through counsel, contends that
the owner "completely replaced the building's security (intercom)
system including a new electric door strike shortly after the
submission of this answer." The owner submitted a copy of a
contract executed on June 14, 1990 along with a copy of a cancelled
check indicating payment of a deposit. The owner also contends
that the order is defective because it does not state the basis for
the finding of decreased services. If the basis of the order is an
inspection, the petitioner argues that DHCR should have informed
the owner of the results of the inspection and given the owner an
opportunity to repair. If the order is based on a default, the
owner refers to the answer filed in June 1990. The owner also
asserts that because only one tenant complained of building
security, no other stabilized tenant should qualify for a rent
reduction.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petition should be granted in part and the
Administrator's order should be modified.
Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code requires DHCR to
order a rent reduction, upon application by a tenant, where it is
found that the owner has failed to maintain required services.
Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include
repairs and maintenance.
A review of the record in this case reveals that one tenant
(Apt. # 1S) complained of inadequate building security and the
physical inspection confirmed that the locks on the building
entrance doors were not secure. Based on that finding, a rent
reduction was warranted.
The Commissioner agrees, however, that the rent reduction
should apply only to the one tenant who complained about this
condition. The other tenants who complained only about inadequate
hot water, which was processed in a separate proceeding (EE 630066
HW) and not confirmed by a physical inspection, should not get a
rent reduction for the defective door lock condition.
The other objections raised by the owner are without merit.
The owner asserts that the entire entrance door was replaced
shortly after receipt of the complaint and that any defect that may
have been found in a subsequent inspection is a new condition that
was probably tenant-caused. However, no evidence of repairs was
submitted to the Administrator. Evidence submitted for the first
time with the petition is beyond the scope of review of this
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 630059 RO
administrative appeal. In any event, a review of the proposed
contract submitted by the owner with the petition refers to the
installation of an intercom which does not necessarily indicate
that the door lock was repaired.
The tenant of Apt. 1S specifically complained about a
defective cylinder in the door lock. This adequately put the owner
on notice of the condition requiring repair. It is not, and has
not been, DHCR's policy to notify owners in every case of the
results of physical inspections and the courts have affirmed the
Division's position that a copy of the inspection report is not
required to be served on the owner. (Empress Manor Apartments v.
NYSDHCR, 538 N.Y.S. 2d 49, 147 A.D. 2d 642, February 21, 1989.)
The order states that it is based on a complete review of the
record. Since the record includes the owner's answer to the
complaint as well as a physical inspection, there is adequate
substantiation for the decision that was rendered to order a rent
reduction for Apt. 1S for the defective vestibule door lock. The
rent reduction for the three other apartments (1N, 3S, and 4S) is
revoked. Any rent arrears due as a result of this order may be
paid off in 12 equal monthly installments.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
granted in part and the Administrator's order be and the same
hereby is modified to revoke the rent reductions for Apts. 1N, 3S
and 4S but not for Apt. 1S.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
