Adm. Rev. Docket No: FB 530227-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.: FB 530227-RO
:
3840 BROADWAY ASSOCIATES, DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: AF 530112-B
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 21, 1991, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on March
21, 1987 by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New
York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 555 West 160
Street, New York, New York wherein the Administrator reduced rents
for rent controlled tenants based on a finding of a reduction of
certain building-wide service. The rent stabilized tenants did not
require rent reduction, however, the owner was directed to restore
the services to the required level by correcting the conditions
specified.
The record confirms that the present owner was not served with a
copy of the Administrator's order. Accordingly the instant PAR
shall be considered timely even though filed after the thirty-five
(35) day limit.
The applicable law is Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code
and Section 2202.16 of the Rent & Eviction Regulations.
The tenants commenced these proceedings on June 7, 1986, by filing a
joint complaint against the prior owner alleging that the owner had
failed to maintain certain building wide services. The tenant
complained that among other items, that the bell buzzer system was
out of order, that the door and door lock in the building were
broken, that mailboxes were broken or missing; that the public halls
were dirty and paint peeling and that glass in the public area
window was broken, that the elevator was defective, that there was
garbage accumulated in the front of the building, that lights in the
basement were out or defective.
On July 18, 1986, the then owner responded that a new intercom
system was in the process of being installed, that by agreement with
tenants, locks had been installed on the outer door of the building
to keep out vandals and drug trafficking and the tenants provided
with keys, that new mailboxes would be installed.
An inspection conducted on November 17, 1986 found that the door
buzzer system was inoperative, that hallway walls and ceiling
required painting, that the lobby entrance door lock was
inoperative, that there were de minimus malfunctions of the elevator
cab in that there was some vibration and that there was an open
elevator shaft door at the bulkhead.
Adm. Rev. Docket No: FB 530227-RO
On March 24, 1987, the Administrator issued order reducing the rent
for the rent controlled tenant by $15.00 per month and directing the
owner to restore all services to the required level. The orders
were addressed to the owner of record.
In the petition, the present owner indicates that it took title to
the subject premises on December 11, 1986 and that it was never
served with a copy of the rent reduction order rented July 19, 1990,
by the Compliance Bureau.
In the petition the owner argues that the Division's failure to
serve the owner with the Administrator's rent reduction order sent
four (4) years after said order was entered denied the owner of due
process in that the owner deprived of a opportunity to submit
documentation to substantiate that service even maintained at on the
subject premise. The petitioner contends that due to the lack of
service of said order it should not be required to refund any monies
claimed due and owing by the tenant, nor be subject to any monetary
liability by the Division.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
There is not evidence in the case docket below, nor does the
petitioner assert, that the Administrator was notified of the
transfer of title prior to the date the Administrator's orders
issued. Moreover, the present owner did not register the premises
with Division until after the issue date March 23, 1987.
Consequently, the Administrator acted properly in issuing the rent
reduction order to the owner of record.
Turning to substantive issues the Commissioner notes that the
petitioner concedes that the public areas required painting. An
inspection July 20, 1990 in connection with compliance proceedings
revealed that conditions had not been corrected. The inspector
reported that the bell buzzer system had been removed and not
replaced, that there was paint and plaster throughout the building,
that the vestibule door lock was broken and that the
vestibule door near the front door closed properly. Additionally,
the inspection indicated that the elevator door did not close all
way and that the elevator shaft door was loose and open.
A subsequent inspection on March 21, 1991 in connection revealed
that the conditions were addressed but that defects remained or that
conditions had reoccurred, in that the vestibule door lock was not
working properly and that the painters had not scraped before
painting the walls and ceilings.
In light of the fact that the owner did not receive the
Administrator's order until July 19, 1990, and the fact that the
owner attempted to address the conditions thereafter, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that any property agency monetary
sanction and civil penalties is premature at this time.
However, the Commissioner is also of the opinion that the
Administrator's March 24, 1987 determination directing rent
reductions for rent controlled tenants and directing restoration of
Adm. Rev. Docket No: FB 530227-RO
services should be affirmed. Since the owner failed to notify the
Administrator in a timely manner that it had acquired title to the
property, the Administrator acted properly in serving the rent
reduction order upon the owner of record. In the absence of any
irregularity in a vital matter by the Administrator below,
reconsideration of the Administrator's order is not warranted.
The owner is advised to file an application to rent restoration
based on a restoration of services, in the prescribed form, if it
has not already done so.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Emergency Tenant
Protection Act of 1974, and Chapter 403 of the Laws of 1983, as
amended by Chapter 102 of the Laws of 1984, as implemented by
Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is denied, and
the Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
