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.:FA110008RO
Petrex Realty/Aldo Realty, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:EH110794S
SUBJECT PREMISES:
34-06 82nd St.
Apt. 3
New York, NY
PETITIONER
-----------------------------------X
...ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN
PART AND MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on November 30, 1990 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 August 29, 1990 by filing a
complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment.
In an answer dated November 14, 1990, the owner denied the
allegations and otherwise asserted that upon the owner's
investigation of the complaint, the tenant agreed that the following
needed to be done:
- new kitchen sink to be installed;
- extermination;
- hole in bedroom floor to be repaired in a workmanlike
manner;
- brackets to be installed on bathroom pipes near the
bathtub.
The owner submitted copies allegedly signed by the tenant concerning
modifications to the complaint. One copy dated October 25, 1990
states that "the windows are all OK". Another copy dated October 29,
1990 states that "the floor was done perfectly." The owner also
submitted copies of letters from the exterminating company
indicating regular extermination of the subject apartment.
On November 14, 1990, an inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported the following:
FA110008RO
(1) The two (2) living room windows have top sashes painted
shut and missing locks.
(2) The left side window of the 2nd bedroom have top and bottom
sashes difficult to open and close; the top sash does not
fully close and there is a missing lock.
(3) The right side window of the 2nd bedroom has the top sash
painted shut.
(4) There is roach infestation throughout the apartment.
(5) The kitchen ceiling is repaired in an unworkmanlike manner.
(6) The ceiling of the master bedroom was repaired in an
unworkmanlike manner; the repaired areas are sunken and
not sanded.
(7) The floor of the master bedroom floor was repaired in an
unworkmanlike manner; there are gaps between floor boards
in various areas.
.
By an order dated November 30, 1990, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that all work was
done, and that findings outside the ambit of the complaint are
violative of the owner's due process.
DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be granted in part and that the Administrator's
order should be modified accordingly.
Based on the tenant's alleged modification of the complaint that
only certain items need be repaired, the owner could reasonably
assume that those items alone need be done; that after repairing
those items, no further action is required; and that the proceeding
before DHCR would be terminated without a rent reduction. Due
process requires that the tenant's signed statements, if submitted
by the owner, be served on the tenant and, if challenged, that the
owner be advised that the original complaint was not being
withdrawn.
In the instant case, the physical inspection revealed that contrary
to the owner's allegations and statements allegedly signed by the
tenant, the necessary repairs were not done and could not possibly
have not been done properly before the November 14, 1990 inspection.
A rent reduction for these conditions is required pursuant to
Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, but because of the
failure to verify the tenant's signature on alleged statements
concerning these conditions or to advise the owner that the original
complaint was not being terminated, the effective date of the rent
FA110008RO
reduction is hereby modified to December 1, 1990, the first of the
month following issuance of the Administrator's order, when the
owner had actual knowledge that the original complaint was not being
withdrawn.
Rent arrears may be due the owner from the tenant as a result of
this Order and Opinion. Any arrears shall be paid in monthly
installments which shall not exceed the amount of the monthly rent
reductions revoked herein.
The status of the owner's rent restoration applications is as
follows: EL110217OR denied on May 29, 1991 and FF110183OR denied on
February 20, 1992.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in
part, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
modified in accordance with this Order and Opinion.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
