ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FL 210009 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 210009 RO
:
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
DH 210792 S
MARTIN KIRZNER/
L AND T E22 REALTY CO.
PREMISES:
430 East 22nd St.,
PETITIONER : Apt. No. 2A,
------------------------------------X Brooklyn, 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 November 13, 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 August 31, 1989 by
filing a complaint asserting in substance that the owner had failed
to maintain numerous services in the subject apartment, namely: a
hole in the bathroom ceiling, peeling paint and plaster in the
bathroom, damaged living room wall due to improper repairs, living
room ceiling never painted, peeling paint in the living room
ceiling, and bathroom tiles improperly installed.
In an answer filed on October 30, 1989, the owner stated that
"the tenant's bathroom has been completely fixed."
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FL 210009 RO
Thereafter, physical inspections of the subject apartment were
conducted on August 8, 1990 and October 8, 1991 by a Division staff
member who reported the existence of defective conditions and of
repairs done in an unworkmanlike manner.
The Administrator determined from these on-site inspections
that the living room ceiling plaster is cracked and that the
bathroom wall tiles are not installed properly in the area of the
tub faucets. The Administrator directed restoration of services
and further ordered a reduction of the stabilized rent.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that he was
denied due process by the Division's delay in issuing the order
with a rent reduction effective October 1, 1989 when if the order
had been issued promptly, the owner could have made the necessary
repairs and filed for restoration. The owner also claims that if
the order is based on a recent inspection, the minor items cited
are most likely reoccurrences of conditions that were corrected
when the complaint was received. The owner further alleges that
the tenant has refused access since the issuance of the order.
In answer, the tenant asserts that the complained-of
conditions have inconvenienced her and are not minor items. She
also denies that she has refused access and states that the
superintendent has been in her apartment many times.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that although the owner has
characterized the cited conditions as "minor" items "promptly
attended to", the record reveals that there was not prompt
attention to these complained-of items from the time the complaint
was served on the owner on September 20, 1989 until the issuance of
the Administrator's order.
The tenant specifically described in the complaint improperly
installed bathroom tiles. If this defective installation had been
promptly corrected in October 1989, as the owner asserts, it would
not have occurred by the time the first inspection took place on
August 8, 1990. Similarly, the cracked living room ceiling, which
was not even mentioned in the owner's answer to the complaint, was
confirmed by the first inspection and was found to have
deteriorated further on the second inspection, suggesting that no
repairs had even been attempted.
While it is unfortunate that the Division cannot process all
complaints expeditiously, the owner herein could have avoided a
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FL 210009 RO
rent reduction if the necessary repairs had been promptly and
properly attended to. The tenant, however, has had to suffer the
consequences of the owner's failure to maintain required services
for an extended period of time, and is entitled by law to a rent
reduction.
The owner's contention of tenant refusing access after the
issuance of the Administrator's order is unsubstantiated and beyond
the scope of administrative review, which is limited to the issues
and evidence before the Administrator.
Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code requires DHCR to
reduce the legal regulated rent, upon application by the tenant,
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. Accordingly,
the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly determined
that the owner had failed to maintain required services based on
the evidence of the record, including the results of the on-site
inspections of the subject premises; and that pursuant to Section
2523.4(a) of the Code, a rent reduction is warranted effective the
first of the month following service of the complaint on the owner.
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 rent based upon the restoration of
services.
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
|
