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.:FA110373RO
Michael Pistilli, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:EI110470S
SUBJECT PREMISES:
58-35 Granger Street
Apt. 4I
Corona, NY
PETITIONER
-----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on January 25, 1991 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 September 17, 1990 by filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment.
On October 19, 1990, the owner filed an answer asserting a ninety
(90) day extension to comply with tenant's request and that all
repairs are being scheduled for November 12, 1990.
In another answer dated November 19, 1990, the owner submitted a
copy of a foreman's statement that work was completed on November
12, 1990; the tenant did not sign this statement.
The owner again requested a ninety (90) day extension on December
13, 1990.
On January 15, 1991, an inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed that the windows
throughout the apartment had air seepage; the windows were loose and
drafty.
FA110373RO
By an order dated January 25, 1991, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that upon receipt
of the Administrator's order, the owner corrected the conditions;
and that the Administrator's determination is premature because the
request for a ninety (90) day extension to answer an application is
automatically granted by DHCR.
DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is
authorized to order a rent reduction, upon application by a tenant,
where it is found that an owner has failed to maintain required
services. The owner's petition does not establish any basis to
modify or revoke the Administrator's determination based on the
January 15, 1991 inspection which confirmed the existence of
defective conditions, warranting a rent reduction.
The owner's allegation that the request for a ninety (90) day
extension to answer an application is automatically granted by DHCR
is wrong. See DHCR Administrative Review Docket No. GA110112RO.
In addition, the owner himself stated that all repairs were
completed on November 12, 1990, which is belied by subsequent
inspection. Furthermore, the owner admits in the petition that upon
receipt of the Administrator's order, he corrected the conditions.
The status of the owner's rent restoration applications is as
follows: FD110038OR denied on September 18, 1991 and GF11O167OR
denied on September 10, 1993.
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, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
LULA M. ANDERSON
Deputy Commissioner
|
