ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GC - 230168 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.:
GC - 230168 RO
: (Refile of GB - 230053-B)
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: CL - 230124 B
GERALD PINDUS
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW,
IN PART
On March 7, 1992, the above named petitioner-owner refiled and
perfected a Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) appealing an
order issued on January 9, 1992, by the Rent Administrator at Gertz
Plaza, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations
located at 180 East 17th Street, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the
Administrator determined the tenants' complaint of reductions of
services building-wide.
The challenged order reduced the tenants' rents based on
findings that an inspection conducted on September 25, 1991 found
that the owner had failed to maintain several building services,
more fully set forth below.
On appeal, the owner contends that there was no rational basis
to sustain findings that the owner had failed to maintain required
services for the years prior to the inspection. The owner argues
that the September 25, 1991 inspection was inadequate to reveal
conditions that existed in March 1989, the effective date of the
rent reductions, or any time prior thereto. At most, the owner
reasons, the rents should be reduced only back to the date of the
inspection, as there was no evidence that the services were reduced
prior to that date.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GC - 230168 RO
The owner also argues that as the tenants' complaint alleged
nearly one-hundred (100) service reduction conditions in a shotgun
approach, as most of the conditions listed were not confirmed, the
tenants' complaints were not credible as a statement of the
conditions on the filing date.
The owner further contends that the enumerated conditions do
not constitute reductions of required services.
The applicable law is Section 2520.6(r) and 2523.4 of the Rent
Stabilization Code.
With respect to the doorman services, the Commissioner notes
that Section 2520.6(r) of the Rent Stabilization Code defines
required services as those services furnished or required to be
furnished to continuously stabilized housing accommodations on May
31, 1968 and all additional services provided or required to be
provided thereafter. The owner suggests, however, that the April
1, 1984 initial services registration date is a new base date for
determining required services because the tenants failed to file
timely objections to the owner's registration which stated that the
doorman's hours were variable. The owner is wrong. Tenants can
object to service diminutions at any time.
The Administrator determined that the base date doorman
services extended from 8:00 a.m. to midnight seven days a week,
based on the information furnished by the prior base date owner.
The owner concedes that he was served with the prior owner's
statement. In light of the owner's failure to rebut the evidence,
despite adequate opportunity to do so, the Administrator's
determination was sound and should be affirmed.
The owner also claims he was denied due process because of the
Administrator's failure to hold a hearing as to this issue.
However, the Division is not required to hold hearings. The
decision to do so is left to the Administrator's sound discretion.
All that is required is that the parties have notice of the
proceeding and an opportunity to present their positions.
The Administrator's order set forth that the bulkhead areas
had peeling paint and plaster, that the walls had leak damage, that
plaster was crumbling, and that the bulkhead areas were cracked
(items 1 and 2 on the reverse side of the order), reflecting the
results of the September 25, 1991 inspection. An earlier
inspection conducted on September 9, 1990 found similar conditions.
The tenants' complaint had alleged that there were broken windows
in the roof area, that the stairwell roof was leaking and that
parts of the interior walls were falling. The inspector's findings
confirmed the conditions cited by the tenants more than two years
prior to the inspection. The report reflected a deterioration on
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GC - 230168 RO
the interior walls, with a possible impairment to the structural
integrity of the building, affecting tenants throughout the
building. The conditions were directly related to the complaints
and the foreseeable development of the conditions reported by the
tenants. The owner's argument that the Administrator's order
extended the tenants' complaint is therefore rejected as being
without merit. The fact that the conditions remained uncorrected
during the period lends further support that rent reductions were
warranted.
The owner suggests that the missing laundry room sink faucet
knob, the inoperative laundry room exhaust fans, the defective
garage exit sign and the inoperative garage exhaust fans might be
considered items of routine maintenance which do not necessarily
constitute, in the first instance, a failure to maintain services.
However, the earlier inspection conducted in September 1990 found
similar problems. The owner's failure to conduct what amounted to
minor repair work and routine maintenance over the extended period
of time justified the rent reductions for these items.
Additionally, while the actual laundry room and garage space
and equipment were not reduced, the tenants' use of these services
and facilities was affected, by the reduced ventilation, air
circulation and cleanliness resulting from defective equipment, in
normally hot and/or dusty locations.
Landscaping and ground maintenance are services provided by
the owner under the provisions of the Code. The tenants' complaint
that shrubbery and plants had been removed was consistent with the
Administrator's findings that the grounds were not adequately
maintained. While specific maintenance decisions are normally left
to the owner's discretion, and allow for seasonal variations, the
owner's suggestion that landscaping maintenance is limited to the
springtime constitutes an admission that conditions are not
promptly addressed when maintenance is necessary and feasible.
With regard to the existence of water stained garage walls,
the Commissioner notes that the condition is serious, affects the
structural integrity of the building and is not merely cosmetic.
However, the tenants' complaint of roof leaks was insufficient to
afford the owner due process notice of the conditions found. While
lack of notice precludes rent reductions based on this condition,
the owner is cautioned to remedy the problem. Failure to do so may
subject the owner to further sanctions upon the filing of a proper
complaint by the tenants.
The owner is correct that a defective service room entrance
door used by the building staff, and not by tenants, was a minor
maintenance item not affecting tenants, and consequently should
be revoked as a basis for the rent reductions.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GC - 230168 RO
Service of the tenants' complaint gave the owner early notice
of the conditions. The owner's statements, notably as to doorman
services, and multiple inspections, over an extended period of
time, revealed which complaints had no basis in fact, which
conditions had been addressed, and which conditions remained
uncorrected over a three year period. The owner's conclusion that
the September 1991 inspection was not close enough to the tenants'
complaint to verify the tenants' allegations, or in the
alternative, that the rents be reduced only back to the date of the
September 1991 inspection, is belied by the record, and must,
therefore, be rejected.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be granted in part and that
the Administrator's order be affirmed, as modified above.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
