GI130209RT
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.:
GI130209RT
RICHARD R. BILLER,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER FG130045B
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 21, 1992, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
August 25, 1992, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 47-10 Laurel Hill Boulevard, Queens,
New York, wherein the Administrator determined the complaints by
two tenants of decreases of various building-wide services.
The tenants commenced these proceedings by filing several indi-
vidual service decrease complaints in June 1991. They were con-
solidated and assigned the above-referenced docket number. The
tenants also alleged that there were violations of various City
ordinances and that there were judicial proceedings involving the
owner and one of the tenants. In support, the tenants submitted
numerous photographs and various documents.
The tenants complained, variously, of unsanitary conditions due to
the improper, inadequate and untimely removal of refuse, debris and
animal droppings from the grounds and public areas; insufficient
janitorial services and staff, in that the resident superintendent
was not available a substantial amount of the time, and that some
of the functions were performed by the superintendent's underage
children; inadequate lighting in the public areas; obstructions in
public areas placed there by other tenants; insecure vestibule and
entrance doors; building grounds and equipment alterations and
modifications conducted by unqualified personnel, and without
proper plans and permits; tenant directories that were not up-to-
date; improper storage of food in the basement by the superinten-
dent; and intercom systems equipment placed outside the entrance doors.
GI130209RT
The tenants' papers also reflected numerous other claims and asser-
tions which were insufficient to constitute specific complaints of
decreased services, or which pointed to items already under consid-
eration in separate DHCR proceedings, such as the allegation of the
elimination of storage space.
The challenged order dismissed the tenants' complaints based on the
results of an inspection conducted on February 11, 1992 by a member
of the DHCR inspection staff. The inspector reported no evidence
of debris on the grounds or of obstruction in public areas, ade-
quate janitorial services provided by an on-premises resident
superintendent, doors and locks operating properly, and intercoms
that were accessible.
The Administrator directed the tenants to file individual apartment
complaints with regard to the issue of updating the tenant direc-
tories.
The order also advised the tenants to refer complaints regarding
violations of City ordinances and other laws to the appropriate
government agencies.
One of the tenants filed an appeal. The tenant states, in essence,
that the various conditions cited below have not been corrected,
and that the owner has been cited for violations.
A copy of the tenant's appeal was served on the registered owner,
the partner of the owner named by the tenants, on October 13, 1992,
who interposed an answer to the effect that services were main-
tained, that there were no violations, and that the owner was not
depriving the tenant of services. In her reply, the tenant dis-
putes the owner's statements, and reiterates prior assertions.
The tenant's appeal does not establish any basis to modify or
revoke the Administrator's order. The Administrator determined the
complaints based on an inspection that indicated the owner main-
tained required services, and advised the tenants to refer
allegations of violations to the proper agencies for appropriate
processing. The inspection results support the Administrator's
findings.
Several of the tenants' complaints, did not detail defective condi-
tions, but rather, routine and recurring maintenance conditions,
which appear to have been addressed on a prompt and continuous
basis, and which, therefore, did not constitute reduced services
warranting rent reductions.
The Commissioner notes that the inspection report that provided the
basis for the Administrator's order was both conducted and prepared
GI130209RT
by a DHCR inspector who is not a party to the proceedings. In
determining the outcome, the report, placed in the record for the
Administrator's consideration was entitled to, and was afforded,
substantial weight.
The Commissioner notes that different laws and requirements are
involved in proceedings pertaining to violations of various laws
and ordinances, and these before the DHCR. Any purported viola-
tions of non-DHCR matters are not within the ambit of the
Division's jurisdiction. The fact that some issues overlap with
matters raised in DHCR proceedings is not determinative of the
issues before the DHCR, below or on appeal.
The tenants were also advised below to file individual apartment
complaints with regard to the issue of updating building direc-
tories. The instant appeal is not the proper vehicle to reassert
the complaint.
The assertions below and on appeal that certain other tenants
allegedly were given services denied complainants, i.e., to main-
tain washing machines in their apartment or the use of a private
laundry facility other than the coin operated laundry room, or to
store food in the basement, and the assertion elaborated upon on
appeal that roof alarm doors were not installed until 1991, fail to
state complaints constituting service decreases. The tenants did
not establish, nor did they assert, that these services were
previously provided to them.
The tenant's claim below and on appeal that his right to storage
room services has been eliminated or greatly reduced is under
consideration in the tenant's PAR per Docket No. EG120366RT, even
though the Administrator's determination found that storage space
is provided to tenants.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations for New York City, the City Rent Control Law,
and 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.
GI130209RT
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
