FL 120189-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.: FL 120189 RO
KARY MIHAILIDES DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: FH 120611 S
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 30, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued December 19, 1991. The order concerned
housing accommodations known as Apt 3A located at 24-17 28th
Street, Astoria, N.Y. The Administrator order a 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 tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a Statement
of Complaint of Decrease in Services on August 19, 1991 wherein
she alleged the following services deficiencies:
1. Kitchen sink faucet, bathroom sink faucet and
bathroom tub faucet leak
2. Kitchen window frame badly corroded
3. Water seepage around bedroom window
4. Light fixture on bathroom ceiling improperly
rigged
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on
September 6, 1991 and stated that the tenant had refused access
to the owner on three different occasions. The owner claimed
that a certified letter was sent to the tenant requesting that
access be provided. A copy of that letter, dated August 27,
1991, was annexed to the answer.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the
subject apartment. The inspection was conducted on October 31,
1991 and revealed the following:
1. Kitchen hot water faucet leaking
2. Plumbing bathroom hot water faucet leaking
3. Kitchen window frame worn out. Top/bottom sashes
do not meet to lock window. Lock inoperative. Top
sash needs adjustment
4. Bedroom window frame worn out. Bottom sash loose
and lock inoperative
5. Right side of bedroom wall cracked.
6. Plumbing in bathroom sink leaking
The following services were found to have been maintained:
1. No evidence of defective plumbing in bathtub
faucet
2. No evidence of vermin infestation in apartment
3. No evidence of hole in wall under kitchen sink
The inspector noted that the owner and tenant were present at the
time of the inspection.
On November 20, 1991 the Administrator sent the tenant a
notice requesting information regarding whether repairs had been
made by the owner. The tenant filed a response on December 4,
1991 and stated that the following had not been repaired: kitchen
sink, kitchen window frame and bedroom window.
The Administrator ordered a rent reduction of $25.00 per
month based on the above report. The order was issued December
19, 1991. The Commissioner notes that the owner has filed for
rent restoration. Said application is currently pending with the
DHCR.
On appeal the owner states that the tenant did not give any
notice of the conditions that were cited in the order here under
review. Petitioner states that the first notice came from a New
York City building inspector, who was called to investigate the
alleged conditions in the tenant's apartment. The petitioner
stated that, despite stated willingness to make repairs, the
tenant refused to cooperate. Based on the tenant's alleged
failure to cooperate and the alleged lack of notice, the owner
requests reversal of the order here under review
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
denied.
The Commissioner rejects the owner's contention regarding
lack of notice of the conditions cited in the complaint. It is
settled that the filing of a complaint of failure to maintain
services puts the owner on adequate notice of the existence of
the conditions and the necessity of making repairs. The owner
was served with a copy of the complaint and filed a lengthy
response thereto. Accordingly, the owner cannot now claim lack
of notice.
With regard to the owner's claims regarding the lack of
cooperation by the tenant, the Commissioner notes that the
inspection conducted on November 31, 1991 was of the "no access"
type. Both parties were directed to be present at the apartment
and the owner was directed to have repair persons present and
ready to attend to repairs. When the inspector arrived at the
apartment, the tenant provided access to both the inspector and
the owner. Since the tenant met the access requirement of the
DHCR, the owner's statement is without merit.
With regard to the owner's claims that repairs have been
made, they are at variance with the report of the inspector and
the tenant's December 4, 1991 response to the Administrator's
inquiry. It is settled that the report of a DHCR inspector is
entitled to more probative weight than the unsupported
allegations of a party to the proceeding.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City 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
|
