FF410345RO
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 SJR 6788 DEEMED DENIAL
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: FF410345RO
DWELLING MANAGERS, INC. RENT
C/O F.B.S.A. & G., P.C. ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: EF410037OR
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 25,1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued May 21, 1991. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt 33F located at 60 East 8th Street, New
York, N.Y. The Administrator denied the owner's application for
rent restoration.
Subsequently the owner filed a petition pursuant to Article 78
of the Civil Practice Law and Rules in Supreme Court wherein it
deemed it's petition for administrative review denied. The court
remitted the proceeding to the DHCR based on its agreement to issue
an order in this matter no later than June 11, 1993.
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 June 1, 1990 and stated
that it had restored services for which a rent reduction order
bearing Docket No. AF410755S had been issued. A copy of the
application was served on the tenant. The tenant failed to file a
response.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the
apartment. The inspection was conducted on January 16, 1991 and
revealed evidence of peeling paint and plaster on the bedroom wall
and living room window sill. The inspector also reported that the
foyer bathroom sink had not been repaired.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on May
21, 1991 and denied the owner's application based on the report of
FF410345RO
the DHCR inspector.
On appeal the owner, as represented by counsel, states that it
repaired the exterior walls around the subject apartment, that the
tenant allowed the owner to paint only the affected areas instead
of the entire apartment, that a plumber checked both bathroom sinks
which were found to work properly, that the owner did all work the
tenant requested and for which access was provided and that the
order here under review was issued incorrectly and should be
revoked. The owner attached documentation in the form of prior
orders of the Administrator and paid bills which were offered to
show that repairs had been done. The petition was served on the
tenant on July 18, 1991.
The tenant filed a response on July 22, 1991 and stated that
the owner had failed to make the necessary repairs and that the
petition should be denied.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner initially notes that the rent reduction order
bearing Docket No AF410755S was appealed to the Commissioner. The
Commissioner issued an order and opinion remanding this proceeding
to the Administrator (Docket No. BC410345RO). The Administrator
ordered a physical inspection of the apartment after the proceeding
was reopened and issued an order bearing Docket No. CG410079RP
wherein the rent reduction was affirmed. The Commissioner has
affirmed Docket No. CG410079RP in an order and opinion bearing
Docket No. DG410165RO.
The Commissioner further notes that the owner filed an
application for rent restoration which was assigned Docket No.
CC410166OR and denied by an order of the Administrator issued on
October 11, 1988. The owner filed a petition for administrative
review of that order and the Commissioner denied said petition
(Docket No. CK410051RO).
With regard to the order here under review, the Commissioner
has reviewed the rent reduction order issued in Docket Nos.
AF410755S and CG410079RP. The orders reduced the rent based, in
part on a defective bathroom foyer sink, peeling paint and plaster
on the living room window sill and a water leak damaged bedroom
wall. With regard to the sink and living room window sill, it is
clear from the report of the DHCR inspector that the owner has not
made the required repairs and the conditions still exist. When
contradicted by statements and evidence by a party to the
proceeding this report is entitled to more probative
weight. With regard to the leak damaged bedroom wall, if the owner
has made repairs to the exterior wall and has painted the affected
area, the repairs have not been done in a workmanlike manner. In
order for the owner to obtain rent restoration all repairs must be
FF410345RO
done in a workmanlike manner as determined by physical inspections.
Based on the failure to make complete and proper repairs, rent
restoration was correctly denied. The order here under review is
affirmed.
The Commissioner notes that the owner has refiled for rent
restoration and that this application is currently pending before
the DHCR (Docket No. GE410210OR).
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
|
