FI410380RT
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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NO.: FI410380RT
FI410381RT
Stephen A. Glanzrock and RENT
Richard Brause, Tenants ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: EA430172OR
PETITIONERS
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN
PART AND REMANDING PROCEEDING TO RENT ADMINISTRATOR
On September 12, 1991 the above named petitioner-tenants filed
Petitions for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order of the
Rent Administrator issued on August 8, 1991 concerning the housing
accommodations known as various apartments at 275, 277, and 279
West 22nd Street, New York, NY wherein the Rent Administrator
granted the owner's rent restoration application.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence of record and has
carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues raised on
appeal.
A review of the record reveals that on January 19, 1990, the owner
filed an application to restore rents that had been reduced in an
order issued on June 23, 1988 in Docket No. BK430067B. The owner
stated in the application that the exterior entrance lights have
been replaced, that additional garbage cans have been purchased,
and that a new superintendent has been hired who lives in an
adjoining building.
The application was served on the tenants on March 7, 1990. Four
tenants, including the petitioners herein, filed answers claiming
that services have not been restored.
A DHCR inspector visited 277 West 22nd Street on October 29, 1990
and reported that the exterior light fixture was adequate, there
was no evidence of garbage accumulation, the public areas were not
dirty and janitorial services appeared to be adequate, but there
were no garbage receptacles. Another inspection of all three
buildings on January 7, 1991 revealed that all services listed in
the rent reduction order had been restored except that the public
areas in 275 and 279 West 22nd were dirty.
FI410380RT
On March 27, 1991, the owner was notified of the results of the
inspection and advised to provide a sworn statement by the
super/janitor that the areas noted in the inspector's report were
cleaned after the date of the notice. In response, the owner
submitted an undated (and unsworn) letter to it from the
superintendent stating that the hallways and stairs have been
cleaned to the satisfaction of the tenants. The letter contains
the signatures of five tenants.
Based on this letter and the inspections, the Rent Administrator
granted the owner's application and ordered restoration of the
rents effective May 1, 1991 for rent stabilized tenants and
September 1, 1991 for rent controlled tenants.
In the petition for administrative review filed by tenant
Glanzrock, it is urged that the restoration order be revoked
because the Division's own inspector found that the public hallways
and stairs needed to be cleaned. The petitioner claims that the
person who purported to be the managing agent for the premises is
not a legal agent but someone employed by the true agent to attempt
to obtain signatures from the tenants. Of those who signed the
letter submitted by the owner, one tenant claims that she signed
under duress and submits a statement to that effect, one is
actually the owner's agent, and one told the petitioner that she
sweeps the halls herself. The super works for the owner and the
evidence is clear, according to the petitioner, that he is not
doing his job, in part because he serves several other buildings in
the neighborhood, comprising more than 65 units. The petitioner
also states that the exterior light fixture is frequently burned
out because it is on all the time, that there was no evidence of
garbage accumulation on the day the inspector came because the
Sanitation Department had just picked up the garbage, and that the
public areas were clean only because the tenants clean them
themselves. Included with the petition are photographs, dated by
means of newspapers, purporting to depict the failure to maintain
the public areas of the buildings.
In the petition for administrative review filed by tenant Brause,
it is alleged that the owner is not entitled to any rent increases
because the buildings are not properly registered with DHCR, that
the owner's statement regarding cleaning the public areas is self-
serving, that the tenants themselves clean the halls and stairs and
attempt to prevent accumulation of garbage, that the inadequacy of
the janitorial services is indicated by the lack of hot water from
April to June 1991 as documented by the Buildings Department, and
that, in violation of the Housing Maintenance Code, the janitor
does not reside in a building that connects or adjoins the subject
buildings.
The petitions were served on the owner on November 1, 1991. In
response, the owner stated that because of foreclosure proceedings,
FI410380RT
the buildings are now in the hands of a receiver. The petitions
were then served on the receiver who claimed that all services are
being maintained, that the photos can be created by anyone with a
camera and do not establish the existence of abnormally dirty
conditions, and that the superintendent is very competent and does
his job well.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitions should be granted
in part and the proceeding remanded to the Rent Administrator.
An owner is entitled to restoration of rent if it is established
that all services for which the rent was reduced have been
restored.
In the instant case, the Division's inspector found that all
services had been restored except that buildings 275 and 279 had
dirty hallways and stairs. This report established that
restoration of rents was not warranted.
The owner was directed by the Rent Administrator to submit a sworn
statement by the superintendent or janitor that the public areas
were subsequently cleaned. The statement submitted by the owner
was not sworn to and was repudiated by at least one of the tenants,
whose signatures appears on the letter.
Moreover, the petitioners have adequately established, by means of
photographs and documentary evidence (i.e., records of violations)
that restoration of rent may not have been warranted. A remand of
the proceeding to the Rent Administrator for another physical
inspection is deemed necessary in order to ascertain that the
public hallways and stairs are being maintained in a clean
condition. If they are not, the restoration of rent should be
revoked for the two petitioner-tenants.
With regard to the allegation that the owner is not entitled to any
rent increases because the buildings are not registered, it is
noted that the restoration order restores the rents to the level in
effect prior to the rent reduction "plus subsequent lawful
increases." If the buildings are not registered, there would be no
subsequent increases.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is
ORDERED that these petitions be and the same hereby are granted in
part and the proceeding be and the same hereby is remanded to the
Rent Administrator for further processing in accordance with this
order and opinion. The Rent Administrator's order remains in full
force and effect pending the issuance of a new order pursuant to
this remand.
FI410380RT
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
