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.:FE610352RO
Grant Realty Partners/ RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
Leonard M. Shendell, DOCKET NO.:EG610303S
SUBJECT PREMISES:
977 Grant Avenue
Apt. 4C
Bronx, 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 May 1, 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 July 13, 1990 by filing a
complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain various
services in the subject apartment.
On July 19, 1990, DHCR mailed a copy of the complaint to the owner,
advising the owner that "failure to file an answer within twenty
(20) days from the date appearing on this notice shall be considered
a default and may result in a determination based on the record
presently before the agency."
The owner failed to answer within (20) days of the July 19, 1990
service of a copy of the tenant's complaint. Thereafter, an
inspection of the subject apartment was conducted on August 20, 1990
by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of defective
conditions.
The owner filed an answer on August 27, 1990, stating that the
tenant refused access at various times.
On November 29, 1990, DHCR mailed the owner a copy of Policy
Statement 90-5 (Arranging Repairs; No Access Inspections), informing
the owner of the requisites for a No Access inspection.
A Notice of Inspection (For Access) was mailed to all parties on
February 7, 1991, informing them to be present on February 13, 1991
at the apartment to provide access to the owner for
FE610352RO
repairing/restoring services. This notice states that "failure of
the owner and/or the owner's repair person(s) to be present and
ready to attend to repairs and/or restore services, or failure of
the tenant to keep this appointment will result in a determination
based solely on the evidence presently in the record."
A No Access inspection of the subject was conducted on February 13,
1991 by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of defective
conditions; and reported the attendance of the tenant, the building
superintendent and the repairman. The inspector noted that the
worker was not ready to make repairs at that time.
By an order dated May 1, 1991, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction based on these
defective conditions:
1) The living room wall (right side when walking in) is
stained.
2) The kitchen ceiling and walls require a second coat of
paint; the wall behind the stove has peeling paint and
plaster; the closets throughout the apartment require
painting.
3) The hot water faucet in the bathroom sink leaks from the
knob; the shower and tub faucet regulator knob is loose.
4) In the bathroom, there are two (2) broken wall tiles into
the left of the tub faucets.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that all work was
done.
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.
The Commissioner notes that the owner failed to answer within (20)
days of the July 19, 1990 service of a copy of the tenant's
complaint, even though the owner was notified that "failure to file
an answer within twenty (20) days from the date appearing on this
notice shall be considered a default and may result in a
determination based on the record presently before the agency." As
a result, an inspection of the subject apartment was conducted on
August 20, 1990 by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence
of defective conditions. For this reason alone, the owner's petition
should have been denied.
However, the owner belatedly raised the issue of tenant refusing
access, and the record establishes that the parties were duly
notified of a No Access inspection on February 13, 1991, to be
present at the apartment to provide access to the owner for
repairing/restoring services. The Notice of Inspection (For Access)
states that "failure of the owner and/or the owner's repair
person(s) to be present and ready to attend to repairs and/or
restore services, or failure of the tenant to keep this appointment
will result in a determination based solely on the evidence
FE610352RO
presently in the record."
The record further shows that on February 13, 1991, the inspector
reported the attendance of the tenant, the building superintendent
and the repairman; the inspector also noted that the worker was not
ready to make repairs at that time.
Accordingly, the owner's petition does not establish any basis to
modify or revoke the Administrator's determination based on the
February 13, 1991 inspection which confirmed the existence of
defective conditions and the owner's worker not being ready to
repair/restore services at that time despite due notice. The
Administrator's order finding decreased services, which warrant a
rent reduction, is hereby and in all respects sustained.
The owner's rent restoration application (HJ610019OR) was granted on
April 19, 1994.
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:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
