GB530064RO
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.: GB530064RO
AERIE LEROY CORP. RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: FF530135OR
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN PART AND MODIFYING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On February 10, 1992 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued January 15, 1992. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 16 Barrow Street, New York, N.Y.
The Administrator denied the owner's rent restoration application.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding on June 12, 1991 by filing
a rent restoration application wherein it alleged that it had
restored serviced for which a rent reduction order bearing Docket
No. BC430098B had been issued. The Commissioner notes that the
Administrator had ordered rent reductions based on findings of
inadequate janitorial service, defective front door lock, rotted
stairs with splintered and cracked wood, and peeling paint and
plaster on hallways, ceilings and exterior window frames and
sashes.
The tenants were served with copies of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. Two tenants filed responses and
stated, in sum, that the owner had not restored services and that
the application should be denied.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspection was conducted on November 29, 1991 and
revealed that the owner had failed to restore any of the services
described above.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
GB530064RO
January 15, 1992 and denied the application based on the
inspector's report.
On appeal the owner, as represented by counsel, states that
inspections held in conjunction with a DHCR compliance proceeding
reported that the owner had restored all services; that, while some
conditions may have reoccurred, others could not have been reported
to be maintained in the compliance proceeding only to be reported
as not being maintained in this proceeding; and that it is
arbitrary to compel the owner to submit to the whim of different
inspectors who view the same condition in a different manner. The
petition was served on the tenants on April 22, 1992.
Two tenants filed responses which were not relevant to the
issue of whether or not the owner had restored the services ordered
restored in the rent reduction proceeding. The owner filed a reply
on April 14, 1993 and essentially restated the arguments set forth
in the petition for administrative review.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted
in part and the order here under review should be affirmed as
modified.
With regard to all cited conditions other than the stairs, the
Commissioner finds that the owner has not restored services and
that, if any repairs were attempted, they were not done in a
workmanlike manner because the conditions have reoccurred. The
report of the DHCR inspector in this proceeding is dispositive of
the issue of whether or not the owner has restored services to the
level warranting rent restoration. It is noted that the March 6,
1991 letter closing the compliance proceeding specifically advised
the owner that application forms had to be filed for rent
restoration, that a new docket number would be assigned and that
the rent would not be restored until an order is issued granting
the application.
With regard to the stairs, however, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the events in the compliance proceeding misled the
owner into believing that any defects in the condition of the
stairs had been corrected to the satisfaction of the Division's
inspectors. The first inspection in the compliance proceeding was
on May 30, 1990 and revealed rotted, cracked and splintered wood on
the first through third floor landings of the public stairs. The
results of this inspection were sent to the owner on June 12, 1990
with instructions to repair this (and other conditions) within 20
days. The owner responded on September 28, 1990 stating, in
relevant part, that replacement of the rotted wood on the first to
third floors had been completed. A following inspection on October
24, 1990 found that the stairs from the first to the third floor
landings did not appear rotted (while other conditions remained
defective). A copy of that report was forwarded to the parties,
GB530064RO
effectively putting the owner on notice that this condition had
been repaired. Unlike some of the other conditions that were the
subject of the rent reduction order (such as dirty halls and a
defective lock) which required ongoing maintenance, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that rotted wooden stairs would not
have reappeared one year after having been replaced. The more
general finding in the November 28, 1991 inspection that there were
various rotted wood stairs throughout the building may have been in
locations other than the first through third floor landings that
the owner was directed to correct in the compliance proceeding.
In any event, since the owner was erroneously put on notice
that the stairs had been repaired, due process requires that the
application for rent restoration be granted with regard to the
stairs and that rent restoration of $3.00 per month be ordered for
rent controlled tenants effective February 1, 1992. With regard to
rent stabilized tenants, the order here under review is modified to
delete the defective stairs as a basis for denying the rent
restoration application. However, since the owner is now on notice
that portions of the wooden stairs are rotted, splintered and
cracked, the owner is directed to make the necessary repairs within
30 days of the issuance of this order or be subject to additional
fines and penalties.
The Commissioner notes that the owner's reapplication for rent
restoration (Docket No GB430125OR) is pending before the DHCR.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and
Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
granted in part, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and
the same hereby is, affirmed as modified herein. Any rent
controlled tenant who owes arrears based on the Commissioner's
decision herein may pay off said arrears in installments of $3.00
per month or immediately if the apartment is vacated.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
