ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FB210020RO
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.:
FB210020RO
:
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
DJ210441S
PREMISES:
159 Bay 29th St.
Apt. No. A10
D.G.J. REALTY CORP./ Brooklyn, N.Y.
HAL J. GREENE MANAGEMENT, INC./
MARVIN GREENE,
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a petition for administrative
review of an order issued on January 9, 1991 concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order
was warranted.
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.
This proceeding was commenced on October 25, 1989 by the
tenant filing a complaint asserting that the apartment had not been
painted for four (4) years.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FB210020RO
On November 10, 1989, the Division sent the owner a copy of
the tenant's complaint at the owner's address as set forth in the
record.
Though duly notified to do so, the owner failed to respond to
the tenant's complaint.
An on-site inspection of the subject apartment was conducted
on November 20, 1990 by a Division staff member who reported that
the rear bedroom ceiling and walls had evidence of cracked and
peeling plaster; that the hallway ceiling and walls (outside the
bathroom) had cracked and peeling plaster; that the bathroom
ceiling had evidence of small cracks; that the bedroom ceiling had
evidence of cracks; and that the living room wall had evidence of
cracks.
The Administrator directed the restoration of services and
reduced the stabilized rent.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contended
in substance that it was not aware of the proceeding under Docket
No. DJ210441S; that it answered in the proceeding below under
Docket No. EE210730S, wherein it alleged that the tenant refused
access despite certified mailings duly notifying the tenant of
scheduled repairs.
On February 19, 1991, the Division mailed the tenant a copy of
the owner's petition.
In answer, the tenant denied refusing access and otherwise
asserted that he was available at different occasions for repairs,
which the owner promised to do, but never did. The owner was
mailed a copy of the tenant's answer on May 17, 1991.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petition should be denied.
The order appealed from (DJ210441S) is based upon an on-site
inspector's report which found on November 20, 1990 defective
conditions within the subject apartment. Accordingly, the
Administrator's determination under Docket No. DJ210441S was in all
respects proper and is hereby sustained.
The owner's allegation that it was not aware of the proceeding
under Docket No. DJ210441S is without merit. On November 10, 1989,
the Division mailed to the owner at its right address as set forth
in the record; and though duly notified to do so, the owner did not
respond to the tenant's complaint under Docket No. DJ210441S.
The owner's allegation that it answered in the proceeding
under Docket No. EE210730S is irrelevant to the order appealed from
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FB210020RO
(Docket No. DJ210441S). A careful search of the Division record
shows that Docket No. EE210730S dealt with different issues (water
from bathroom ceiling, bugs and roaches); that the owner filed also
a petition (GG210127RO) against the Administrator's order under
Docket No. EE210730S; and that the Commissioner determined in
GG210127RO that the owner had failed to prove the tenant's refusal
of access.
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
Deputy Commissioner
|