FA130310RO
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.: FA130310RO
CRYSTAL GARDENS ASSOCIATES RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: EJ130003OR
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 31, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued December 27, 1990. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 120-25 Woodhull Ave., Hollis,
N.Y. The Administrator denied the owner's application for rent
restoration.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding on October 9, 1990 by
filing a rent restoration application wherein it alleged that it
had restored all services for which a rent reduction order bearing
Docket No. BG130036B had been issued.
The tenants were served with a copy of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. Two tenants filed responses to
the application, however, the responses were irrelevant to the
issue of whether the owner had in fact restored services.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspection was conducted on November 21, 1990 and
revealed evidence of holes in hallway and stairwell walls, evidence
of discolored and peeling paint in both areas and evidence of
missing glass in the elevator door. The inspector also reported
that there was no evidence of missing glass in the elevator
entrance door on all floors and no evidence of cracked or broken
glass on the building entrance door.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
December 27, 1990 and denied the application based on the report of
FA130310RO
the inspector.
On appeal the owner, as represented by counsel, states that
the DHCR had notified it that it had complied with the directive to
restore services, that the agency further informed it that a DHCR
compliance proceeding was being closed, and that the tenants have
stated that the owner has restored the services in question. The
owner attached a copy of a letter from an employee of the DHCR
Compliance Unit wherein the employee states that a compliance
proceeding involving the subject building was being closed.
Various tenants filed responses to the petition and stated, in
sum, that the owner had failed to restore services. One tenant
filed a response and stated that the owner had made repairs in
1990.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The owner's petition does not establish that the
Administrator's order denying rent restoration was incorrect. The
letter from the DHCR compliance unit employee clearly informed the
owner of the requirement to file for rent restoration and
specifically stated that the rents would not be restored until
after the issuance of an Administrator's order. The compliance
proceeding was closed without an inspection based on a telephone
conversation with one tenant and is therefore not determinative of
whether the conditions cited in the rent reduction order were
repaired. Of greater relevance is the results of the physical
inspection of the building conducted in conjunction with the
restoration proceeding. This inspection, carried out by a DHCR
employee who is neither a party nor an adversary to the proceeding,
revealed that most of the defective conditions had not been
corrected.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 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
Deputy Commissioner
|
