ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GA 630069-RO
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.:
GA 630069-RO
:
DRO ORDER NO.:
DF 630240-B
FEIN REALTY MANAGEMENT
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 17, 1992, the above named petitioner owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on
December 13, 1991, by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza,
Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as
309 East Mosholu Parkway, Bronx, New York.
Subsequent thereto the petitioner filed a petition in the
Supreme Court, pursuant to Article 78 of the civil Practice Law and
Rules, requesting that the "deemed denial" of the administrative
appeal be denied. An order signed by the Justice of the Court
remitted the proceeding to the Division for an expeditious
determination of the owner's administrative appeal.
The tenants initially complained about leaks and the need for
brick pointing and sealing, among other items. An inspection by
agency staff on March 15, 1991 confirmed the leaks reporting that
the bulkhead wall was water damaged. The owner was subsequently
notified of the findings and was afforded the opportunity to
correct the conditions. The owner subsequently responded that the
contractor had corrected all leak damage to the bulkhead area. In
support the owner submitted a copy of the contractor's proposal for
various repair work, dated April 3, 1991. A second inspection
conducted on November 20, 1991 disclosed, however, that the
bulkhead wall was peeling paint and plaster.
Accordingly, orders were issued on December 13, 1991 reducing
the rents building-wide.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GA 630069-RO
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petition should be denied.
The petitioner's claim that the order was based on conditions
not complained about by the tenants is rejected. The tenants had
alleged leaks. The first inspection confirmed that water damage
existed in the bulkhead area, and notice of the specific findings
was provided to the owner. The peeling paint and plaster found on
reinspection revealed that the underlying problem had not been
corrected or that it had reoccurred. The conditions found in both
inspections were directly related to the complaint and were the
foreseeable consequences of water leaks when not properly
addressed.
The argument that the conditions were cosmetic and did not
constitute required or essential services likewise is without
merit. The reports reflected a deterioration of an interior wall,
with possible impairment to the structural integrity of the
building, affecting tenants throughout the building.
While the owner is commended for correcting other items cited
in the tenants' complaint, rent stabilization and rent control
provisions mandate rent reductions for any failure to maintain
required or essential services and equipment.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, and of the City Rent Control Law and
the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be denied and that the
Administrator's order be affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
