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 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NO.: GB130046RO
APPEAL OF
HALF ASSOCIATES,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER DOCKET NO: FI120014OD
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AFTER
REOPENING AND RECONSIDERATION
On January 14, 1992, the Rent Administrator issued an order (Docket
No. FI120014OD) denying the owner's application for permission to
decrease services at the housing accommodations known as 160-15
Powells Cove Blvd., Whitestone, New York, various apartments. It
was noted in the order that an inspection was conducted under
Docket No. CK130021B; that it was determined in said proceeding
that two side entrance doors are essential services; that a rent
reduction of $2.00 per month was ordered as said doors had been
sealed with bricks; that the owner's application to restore the
rent was denied based on the owner's failure to restore services;
that the owner filed an administrative appeal contending that the
two side doors are not required; and that on administrative review
of said appeal, it was noted that the two side doors are essential
to the building's security, egress and ingress.
On February 5, 1992 the petitioner-owner filed an administrative
appeal against the aforementioned order and alleged, in substance,
that the Division was in error in considering the side entrance
doors to be essential services; that services were minimally
affected by the closing of said side entrances; that the tenants
continue to have proper egress and ingress through the existing
five front entrances to the building; that the tenants benefit from
the added security of having fewer entrances; that the sealing of
the doors was done over fourteen years ago with full approval of
the Department of Buildings; that the denial of the application for
modification of services leaves a building-wide rent reduction
order in effect indefinitely; that this unjustly bars the owner
from getting any rent increases from the affected tenants and
prevents consideration of any MCI rent increase applications; and
that the Division's decision causes unjustified hardship to the
owner.
Adm. Rev. Docket No. GB130046RO
On September 4, 1992 the Commissioner issued an order finding that
the owner's petition for administrative review should be granted in
part; that it is appropriate to permanently reduce the rents of the
affected tenants by the $2.00 per month amount already ordered
under Docket No. CK130021-B, as of the effective date of said
order; that the owner's application for permission to modify or
reduce services should be granted conditioned on such action having
complied with applicable Building Department requirements; and that
all other sanctions contained in or emanating from the order issued
under Docket No. CK130021-B should be revoked.
Subsequently, by letter dated September 15, 1992, the tenants
through their counsel requested reopening of the Administrative
Review proceeding and reconsideration of the Order and Opinion
issued by the Commissioner on September 4, 1992.
On October 14, 1992 the Commissioner issued an order granting the
tenants' request for reconsideration and reopened the
Administrative Review proceeding under Docket No. GB130046RO. It
was noted that in said Administrative Review proceeding, the
Commissioner did not make a determination as to whether the subject
alteration was sanctioned by the Department of Buildings, nor was
further fact finding on this issue conducted or ordered. Rather,
the Commissioner's order provides that the grant of the owner's
application for permission to decrease services is "conditioned on
such action having complied with applicable Building Department
requirements."
Upon reopening this proceeding, the Division afforded the owner a
second opportunity to present further information and evidence by
sending a notice on March 18, 1993 requesting the following:
1) A response in writing to the issues raised by the
tenants' request for reconsideration; and
2) To submit proof that the closing of the two side
entrances had been performed in compliance with
applicable Department of Building requirements.
Said submission included copies of two violations, item Nos. 656
and 766 relating to the sealing of the doors in question which were
initially reported in May 1986 and referred to by the tenants in
the proceeding below. Item 656 describes the violation as follows
"file plans and application and legalize the following alteration
or restore to the legal condition existing prior to the making of
said atteration, entrance brick sealed front at 160 Street,
entrance B Section," whereas item 766 states "file plans and
Adm. Rev. Docket No. GB130046RO
application and legalize the following alteration or restore to the
legal condition existing prior to the making of said alteration,
street entrance sealed with brick, first story public hall to 161
Street entrance D Section."
This notice advised the owner that failure to respond would lead to
appropriate action taken consistent with the Rent Stabilization
Code. No response to said notice has been received by the Division
from the owner.
After a careful reconsideration of the entire evidence of record,
the Commissioner is of the opinion that this Administrative Appeal
should be denied based upon the owner's default and that the Rent
Administrator's denial of the owner's application for permission to
decrease services should be affirmed.
It would be inconsistent with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
to sanction the removal of a required service, particularly where
the application is filed after the fact, where such action by the
owner is inconsistent with the applicable Buliding Laws and
Regulations and in fact the Commissioner's prior order was so
conditioned. The record shows that the sealing of the doors in
question resulted in violations being placed against the subject
property. The owner was failed to establish, although afforded
adequate opportunity to do so, that such violations were removed or
that the work was done in accordance with the requirements of law.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the relief requested in
the owner's application is not warranted and that the
Administrator's order denying such application should be affirmed
for reasons set forth herein.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is denied; that
the prior order and opinion of the Commissioner issued on September
4, 1992 be, and the same hereby is revoked; that the Rent
Administrator's order be, and same hereby is, affirmed as noted
herein; and that the rent reduction order issued under Docket No.
CK130021-B and the sanctions imposed therein be, and the same
hereby are reinstated and remain in full force and effect.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
