GH420129RT
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.: GH420129RT
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
Murry Salberg DOCKET NO.: EH420559S
PREMISES: 445 West 23 St.
Apt. 3E
New York, NY
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued on July 28, 1992
concerning the housing accommodations relating to the above-
described docket number.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order
was warranted.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issues raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on August 23, 1990 by a rent-
control tenant who filed a complaint, asserting that the new owner
failed to clean up the pigeons and the problems they create; that
the pigeons located at the decorative iron balcony of the apartment
above the complaining tenant's are loud and dirty the air-
conditioner and the windows of the complaining tenant.
On August 30, 1990, the Division mailed to the owner a copy of
the tenant's complaint.
In an answer filed on September 18, 1990, the owner stated in
substance that upon receipt of the tenant's complaint, it made
numerous requests for access to the above apartment with the
pigeons; that the owner finally was given access; and that it
applied pigeon repellent which would eliminate further complaints
by the tenant.
GH420129RT
On June 9, 1992, the Division mailed the tenant a "Request for
information", to respond whether the pigeon problem had been
resolved.
In answer, the tenant stated that on September 6, 1990, the
pigeon roost had been cleaned out. However, the tenant requested
a rent reduction for the 3 months of June, July and August 1990.
On July 8, 1992, the Administrator issued the order
terminating the proceeding because the condition in the complaint
has been resolved as acknowledged by the tenant.
In the petition for administrative review, the tenant contends
in substance that he deserves a rent reduction for 3 months when he
had pigeon dirt on his bedroom windows, when he was unable to open
the windows, when he had to wash the air-conditioner daily, and
when he was subjected to foul odors.
On September 1, 1992, the Division mailed a copy of the
tenant's petition to the owner.
In answer, the owner stated in substance that it made all
attempts to remove any pigeon feeders on its property; that it
acted upon receipt of the tenant's complaint by notifying the
tenant with the pigeon roost, requesting access for removal of
same; that it had removed the pigeon roost despite the delay in
obtaining access; and that it thought that the tenant's complaint
had already been withdrawn or resolved more than two years ago,
having heard nothing from the tenant.
On October 2, 1992, the Division mailed a copy of the owner's
answer to the tenant.
In reply, the tenant denied withdrawing the complaint and
otherwise asserted that 3 summer months "seem an inordinately long
time to correct the problems", warranting a rent reduction.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the tenant's petition
should be denied.
A careful review of the evidence in record shows that upon
receipt of the tenant's complaint, the owner promptly made numerous
requests for access to remove the pigeon roost from the tenant in
the above apartment of the subject apartment. Eventually, the
owner removed the pigeon roost; the complaining tenant himself
acknowledged the problem resolved on September 6, 1990.
GH420129RT
The Commissioner thus finds that the owner acted in good faith
to remove the complained of conditions; and that any delay in the
removal of the pigeon roost was beyond the owner's control.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction
Regulations, it is,
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
|
