FK 530308 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.: FK 530308 RO
MAUREEN SCHLATTER DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: CK 530037 B
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On November 25, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued October 22, 1991. The order concerned
housing accommodations located at 98 Morningside Avenue, New
York, N.Y. The Administrator ordered a building-wide rent
reduction for failure to maintain required services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
The tenants commenced this proceeding on November 14, 1988
by filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Building-Wide
Services wherein they alleged the following services
deficiencies:
1. Broken entrance steps
2. Various intercoms not working
3. Elevator malfunctioning
4. Fire escapes in need of painting
5. Defective building gutters causing leaks in
various apartments
6. Asbestos in basement causing fumes in building
7. Roof leaking
8. Garbage put outside needs to be stored in better
manner
9. Steps on some floors coming apart; banisters
broken
10. Missing tiles in lobby floor
11. Entrance gates broken
12. Lights by elevator in need of repair
13. Defective plumbing
14. Hallway walls crumbling and plaster falling down
15. Brown building water
16. Front entrance door lock makes it difficult to get
into lobby
17. Dirty court yard
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The owner's agent filed a
response on December 19, 1988 and stated that it had recently
become the managing agent for the building. The owner requested
an extension of time to investigate and respond to the complaint.
No further response was ever received.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the
building. The inspection was conducted on May 3, 1989 and June
22, 1989 and revealed the following:
1. Building entrance has some broken steps and
missing pillars
2. Elevator switch board panel cannot be closed
3. Hallway tiles broken and missing
The following services were found to have been maintained:
1. Intercom
2. Elevator working properly
3. Fire escapes painted
4. No evidence of basement fumes, leaking roof,
improper garbage disposal, defective lights,
building entrance door lock, defective drain,
rusty water, defective walls, and defective
banisters and steps in hallways
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
September 21, 1989 and ordered a rent reduction of $6.00 per
month for rent controlled tenants and a guideline adjustment for
rent stabilized tenants. No petition for administrative review
of that order was filed. Subsequently, the Administrator issued
an amended order on October 22, 1991. That order corrected the
status of one of the tenants, as set forth in the original order,
to reflect the fact that the tenant was rent controlled and to
order a rent reduction of $6.00 per month for that tenant. The
effective date of the Administrator's order was changed to now
read November 1, 1991. In all other respects the order was
affirmed.
On appeal the owner submits a statement from one tenant,
dated April 2, 1991, which states that repairs have been made.
The owner also submitted a letter, issued by the DHCR Compliance
Unit and dated May 22, 1991 in which the tenants were advised
that, sine they had informed the Division that repairs had been
made, the Division considered the case to be closed.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
denied.
It is noted that since the owner did not appeal the order
issued on September 21, 1989 that became a final order and
determination that is no longer subject to review. The owner's
petition is timely only as to the amended order issued on October
22, 1991 to correct the status of apartment No. 62. The amended
order did not order a second rent reduction. As to that order
the owner has not submitted any evidence to rebut the report of
the DHCR inspector. That report stated that there were three
different building-wide services defects which were the basis for
the rent reduction. The owner did not supply any evidence before
the Administrator, although given an opportunity to do so. It is
settled that the report of the inspector is entitled to more
probative weight than the unsupported allegations of a party to
the proceeding. The Administrator was correct in ordering a
building-wide rent reduction based on the inspector's report. The
statements submitted to the Commissioner as part of the petition
are all dated after the order here under review was issued. The
Compliance Unit clearly informed the owner that the rent would
not be restored until after the owner's application for rent
restoration was granted. The Commissioner notes that the owner
filed for rent restoration and that application was denied on
February 8, 1991 (see Docket No. DL 530153 OR). Since the owner
has stated no basis on which to overturn the Administrator's
order that order is, accordingly, affirmed.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
and Rent and Eviction Regulations it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
