ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FB420363/4RT
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.: FB420363/4RT
MARILYN HALM DISTRICT RENT
SHIRLEY (SCULLY) FREUDENFALL ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: DG420425BO
(BL420206BR)
PETITIONERS
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenants filed timely petitions for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodations known as 322 East 19th Street, Apts. 2R and 2F, New
York, N.Y.
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 petitions.
The issue before the Commissioner is whether the
Administrator's order was correct.
The Administrator's order being appealed, DG420425BO was
issued on January 18,1991. In that order, the Administrator
revoked the finding of BL420206BR, issued June 22, 1989, that the
owner be denied eligibility for a 1988/89 Maximum Base Rent (MBR)
increase, due to the owner's failure to meet the violation
certification requirement necessary to the owner's being granted an
MBR increase.
On appeal, the two tenants individually object to the
Administrator's order. Both tenants, while conceding that the
owner has since earned eligibility to raise 1988/89 MBRs at the
subject premises contend that the owner failed to make various
repairs within their respective apartments. Additionally, one of
the tenants alleges that the owner failed to repair a violation
located in a public area.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should
be denied.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FB420363/4RT
The Commissioner notes that the two above-captioned petitions
were submitted independently. The Commissioner is of the opinion
however, that due to the petitions' appealing the identical
Administrator's order, as well as the similarity of issues raised
on appeal the two petitions are sufficiently similar as to allow
the Commissioner to consider the two petitions together.
In consideration of the two appeals, the Commissioner first
notes that the issue of painting was raised by both tenants on
appeal, wherein each tenant alleged separately that her apartment
was not painted on a timely basis. Moreover, each tenant
specifically alleged various violations (i.e., leaky walls, holes
in the bathroom ceiling, etc.) in her respective apartment.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the alleged
persistence of the above-named violations is irrelevant to the
Administrator's determination in the instant proceeding.
For the grant or denial of eligibility to rely upon the
persistence of a particular violation(s), the violation(s)
allegedly uncleared must either be rent-impairing in nature or
otherwise constitute more than 20% of the violations listed in the
List of Pending Violations (LPV); or it must consist of the
reduction of an essential service.
The alleged violations located in the tenants' apartments fail
both of these tests. As per inspections of the subject premises
performed by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation
and Development all violations noted on the LPV as being of record
against the subject premises had been cleared. Moreover, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the violations do not fit the
statutorily prescribed definition of a reduction of essential
services.
The Commissioner notes that one of the tenants alleges at
appeal that the front door of the building is unlocked. Although
the Commissioner is of the opinion that this would constitute a
reduction of an essential service, and would as such deny the owner
eligibility, an examination of the record discloses that an
inoperative front door is not stated as a violation on the LPV.
Moreover, the owner, in reply to the tenant's petition submitted
evidence to the Commissioner, in the form of repairmen's bills, of
continuing maintenance of the front door, both before and during
the 1988/89 cycle.
The Commissioner further notes that both tenants state on
appeal that most of the alleged violations were eventually cleared.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, it is
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FB420363/4RT
ORDERED, that these petitions for administrative review be,
and the same hereby are, denied, and that the order of the Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
