ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GB 130198
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.:
GB130198RO
:
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: FG130051B
TJS ASSOCIATES c/o
ARCO MANAGEMENT CORP.
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW,
AND REVOKING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On February 14, 1992, the above named petitioner-owner filed
a Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued
on January 27, 1992, by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza,
Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as
124-16 84th Road, Queens, New York.
The tenants complaint of a reduction of certain building-
wide services, filed on July 15, 1991, cited among other items,
defective elevator indicator lights and defective elevator doors,
and the elimination of clotheslines. The owner responded by a
certified letter to the Administrator (P 500 649 504) dated October
1, 1991, to the effect that the owner had attempted to repair the
elevators. Said letter included a proposal by the elevator
contractor to restore dial indicators at a cost of $1,000.00 plus
tax.
The owner also represented that City Buildings Departments
inspections in July or August 1990, prior to the tenants'
complaint, did not reflect any elevator indicator violations. In
fact, the violation report listed defective indicators outside the
hoistway as one of several violations, and recommended that repairs
be made. A later Buildings Department inspection report dated
August 19, 1991, subsequent to the date of the tenants' complaint,
found one violation, wherein the owner was directed to provide a
missing rubber roller on the upper normal limit.
The challenged order reduced the tenants' rents for inopera-
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GB 130198
tive elevator indicator lights and the removal of clotheslines
earlier in the year, contemporaneous with the installation of new
laundry room dryers. The record reflects that dryers and
clotheslines were both available in the past. The tenants'
allegations of other building-wide services reductions were not
sustained.
The owner's appeal reiterates assertions below that elevator
repairs were performed. The tenants were served on April 6, 1992.
A number of tenants contested the owner's claim, either
individually or by reference to the representatives' response,
asserting that the indicator lights were still not functioning.
Concerning the New York City Department of Buildings violation
report for elevator equipment obtained in conjunction with these
proceedings, the Commissioner notes that the City Department of
Buildings has long-established comprehensive procedures, and
inspection programs in place, and the City staff engaged in
carrying out these programs also has the necessary technical
expertise to conduct periodic inspections, to interpret and apply
relevant codes regulations and industry standards; and to issue
violations. Furthermore, in view of the City's greater experience
with elevator enforcement, the City is in a better position than
the DHCR to determine appropriate performance standards and
ancillary equipment for elevators of varying age and
manufacture.
The records of the New York City Department of Buildings
inspection conducted on August 19, 1991, albeit reporting one
violation, failed to confirm the conditions cited by the tenants.
In light of these facts, it is the Commissioner's opinion that
there is insufficient evidence to support the Administrator's
determination of decreased elevator service warranting a rent
reduction.
The owner's appeal also reiterates that clotheslines had been
put back. In the proceeding below, the owner, after being advised
of the results of the August 27, 1991 inspection, notified the
Administrator on October 1, 1991 that the clotheslines had been
restored to the basement area where they had been located
previously. The December 13, 1991 inspector report stated that
"[t]here are no clothes drying lines". However, it cannot be
ascertained from the report of the inspection whether the inspector
visited the basement.
The tenants that contest the owner's appeal concede, either
individually or by reference to the representatives' response, that
clotheslines were partially restored. These tenants contend that
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GB 130198
the replacement clotheslines do not provide as much hanging space,
as the owner had replaced twenty-four (24) lines strung parallel,
with fifteen (15) lines, and that some of the lines cross. It is
the opinion of the Commissioner, that the present equipment affords
the tenants sufficient clothes hanging lines. The Commissioner
finds that the clotheslines were restored prior to the issuance of
the Administrator's order, and that a rent reduction was not
warranted for the item.
Some tenants cite new complaints or reiterate complaints that
were not confirmed below. The Commissioner notes that an answer to
an owner's appeal is not the proper vehicle either to raise new
issues or to object to the Administrator's findings below.
No other grounds were cited as grounds for rent reductions.
Therefore, no grounds remain to warrant the rent reduction.
Accordingly the rent reduction order is revoked. Any rent arrears
due the owner from rent stabilized tenants as a result of the order
may be paid on the course of the next twelve (12) months. Rent
arrears due the owner from rent controlled tenant may be paid over
the course of the next six (6) months.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, the City Rent Control Law, and the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is granted,
and that the Administrator's order be and the same hereby is,
revoked, as provided above.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
