FJ 110155 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.: FJ 110155-RO
:
: DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
VAN KLEECK ASSOCIATES, : DOCKET NO.: FC 110414-S
:
: SUBJECT PREMISES:
: 52-25 Van Kleeck Street
: Apt. No. L2
PETITIONER : Elmhurst, New York 11373
-----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely Petition for Administrative
Review of an order issued on September 11, 1991, concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
number.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to
the issues raised by the petition.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on March 19, 1991 by filing a
complaint asserting numerous defective conditions in the subject
apartment.
In its answer filed on June 12, 1991 and July 3, 1991, the owner
asserts in substance that all repairs were completed and submits
copies of paid bills and checks concerning an October 2, 1990
painting. An April 1, 1991 repair request also submitted by the
owner shows that the tenant allegedly signed on April 8, 1991
complete work on the faucet, the tiles in the bathroom and the
pipes in the bathroom.
Thereafter on August 6, 1991, a physical inspection was conducted
by a DHCR inspector who confirmed the existence of roach
infestation, a defective kitchen faucet leaking cold water, two
areas of missing tiles in the bathroom and the apartment needing
painting.
On August 27, 1991, the tenant filed with DHCR a statement that
"as a result of a massive leak from a water pipe on the sixth
floor," the entire apartment was flooded and required painting;
and that the defective conditions still exist.
FJ 110155 RO
On September 11, 1991, the Administrator directed restoration of
these services and reduction of the stabilized rent.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the
apartment was painted in October 1990 and due for next painting in
1993 and that the tenant never requested repairs of the
complained-of conditions after April 8, 1991 repairs. The owner
re-submits the same supporting papers below and statements from
the exterminator who alleged that the tenant of the subject
apartment "did not sign up" in the program to exterminate rodents.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
The owner submitted a copy of a repair request dated April 1,
1991, wherein the tenant allegedly signed an April 8, 1991
acknowledgment that the faucet, the tiles in the bathroom and the
pipes in the bathroom were repaired. Although the tenant does not
deny this acknowledgment, a physical inspection on August 6, 1991
showed these items not repaired and the apartment needing
painting. In a statement filed with DHCR on August 27, 1991, the
tenant explains that "as a result of a massive leak from a water
pipe on the sixth floor," the entire apartment was flooded and
required painting; and that the defective conditions continue to
exist.
Although the owner appears not to have been informed of the
continued existence of the complained-of conditions, the owner has
an independent duty to complete and finalize repairs. In this
case, the tenant never withdrew her complaint. The physical
inspection found that the faucet, the tiles and pipes in the
bathroom were not actually repaired regardless whether the cause
is from a water pipe leak or improper repairs.
Thus, the owner has offered insufficient reason to disturb the
Administrator's order based on the physical inspection which found
decreased services, warranting rent reduction.
Respecting the existence of roach infestation, the owner's
allegation that the tenant "did not sign up" in the extermination
program was not raised in the proceeding below and prior to
issuance of the Administrator's order and is now raised for the
first time on appeal. Accordingly, this allegation is beyond the
scope of review which is limited to the issues and evidence before
the Administrator.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's
filing an application for restoration of rent based on the
restoration of services, if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
it is
FJ 110155 RO
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
|
