FB430110RO
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.: FB430110RO
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: DG430031B
Algin Management Co.,
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 30, 1991, the above-named petitioner-owner timely
refiled a petition for administrative review of an order issued on
November 27, 1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodations known as 132 East 96th Street, New York,
N.Y., various apartments, wherein the Administrator determined that
the maximum legal rent for rent controlled apartment's should be
reduced by $8.00 per month based upon a diminution of services and
that the rent of rent stabilized apartments should be reduced by an
amount equal to the most recent quideline adjustment. The Rent
Administrator's order was based upon an inspection held on March 5,
1990, which disclosed that although some service items had been
corrected; one service item had not. The inspection of March 5,
1990, revealed that the fourth floor ceiling and roof landing
evidenced peeling paint and plaster.
A notice was sent to the owner on August 3, 1989, with a copy
of the tenants' complaint and on August 25, 1989, the owner
answered alleging that all needed repairs will be made.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issue raised by the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly
reduced the rents of various rent controlled apartments in the
subject building.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted that at the time of
the DHCR's inspection, most repairs were corrected and that the one
condition which remained was an isolated occurrence and is
considered a part of ordinary maintenance which is minor in nature
FB430110RO
and unworthy of a building-wide rent reduction.
The petition was served on the tenants on February 27, 1991.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations provides
that an owner's failure to maintain services may result in an order
of decrease in maximum rent, in an amount determined by the
discretion of the Rent Administrator.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code,
a tenant may apply to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR) for a reduction of the legal regulated rent to the level in
effect prior to the most recent guidelines adjustment, and the DHCR
shall so reduce the rent for the period for which it is found that
the owner has failed to maintain required services.
Required and essential services are defined in Section
2520.6(r) and Section 2200.3(b) to include repairs and maintenance.
A review of the record before the Commissioner clearly shows
that the owner did not submit any evidence that the deficiency
noted in the inspection of March 5, 1990, had been corrected before
the issuance of the appealed order.
The owner's claim on appeal that repairs were in progress is
not material insofar as it had ample opportunity to make all
repairs in a workmanlike manner, but it had failed to completely do
so before the issuance of the Rent Administrator's order.
The Commissioner has also considered and rejects petitioner's
claims on appeal that the condition found below is a part of
ordinary maintenance, minor in nature and not a rent reducing item.
Peeling paint and plaster on the public hallway ceiling and landing
is a building-wide service deficiency worthy of the owner's
attention. This deficiency should have been immediately corrected.
Clearly, the condition found was not a minor item that occurs
normally despite ongoing maintenance or which would be addressed as
part of periodic maintenance.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based
his determination on the entire record, including the results of
the on-site physical inspection conducted on March 5, 1990, and
that pursuant to Section 2203.16 of the Rent and Eviction
Regulations and Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code
the Administrator was authorized to reduce the rent upon
determining that the owner had failed to maintain services.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the owner has offered
insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's
FB430110RO
determination.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations for New York City and the Rent Stabilization
Law and Code, it is,
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
The owner may separately apply for a rent restoration.
ISSUED:
___________________
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|
