GA530120RO
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.:
GA530120RO
204 EAST 112TH ST. EQUITIES, LTD.,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER DOCKET NO.:
----------------------------------x FE430170B
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING, IN PART, PETITION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, REVOKING IN PART, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
RENT REDUCTION ORDER, AND REMANDING, IN PART, THE PROCEEDINGS TO
RENT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review (PAR) of an order issued on December 17, 1991, concerning
the housing accommodations known as 204 East 112th St., New York,
New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined the tenants'
complaint of decreases of building-wide services.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the petition.
The proceedings were begun by the filing of a complaint asserting
that the owner had failed to maintain certain services in the
subject premises.
In an answer, the owner denied the allegations set forth in the
complaint. The owner further alleged that all of the tenant
signatures on the supplemental signature and affirmation form were
either forged, obtained by false pretenses and/or were not the
tenants of record on the date the complaint was filed.
An inspection of the subject premises was conducted by a Division
of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspector who found that
the public halls and stairways were dirty, that the public area
wall and ceilings had peeling paint and plaster, and that windows
in the public halls had broken window panes.
GA530120RO
There is no indication in the record that the Rent Administrator
attempted to verify the signatures or determine if the owner's
allegations of fraudulent circumstances surrounding the filing of
the complaint were, in fact, true.
The Rent Administrator's order directed restoration of these
services and further, ordered a reduction of the stabilization
rent.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner reiterates the
claim that the signatures were forged, that several actual
signatures were obtained by false pretenses, that several of the
forged signatures were not the tenants of record, in that some
tenants had vacated before the complaint was filed, and that one
had died the year prior to the complaint.
The owner states that several tenants whose signatures appear to be
genuine advised the owner that someone had came around collecting
signatures to affix to a petition for permission to clear debris
from the adjacent lot, and not for the purpose of filing of a
complaint with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal. Some
of the tenants signed statements to that effect. The named
complainant signed a statement denying she had ever filed the
complaint or that if she did sign it, her signature was also
obtained under false pretenses.
The complaint had indicated that the tenants were represented by
Legal Aid. In the petition, the owner states that she was advised
that Legal Aid was not representing the tenants in this matter,
that they knew nothing about it, and that the Legal Aid represent-
ative named in the complaint was not an attorney.
The owner also argues that the complaint was too vague to give
notice of the conditions found, and that the fact that extensive
problems are caused by drug dealers and vandalism should have been
considered.
The petition was served on the tenants. Some were returned by the
Post Office undelivered. However, there is no evidence in the
record that any tenant answered the petition.
After a careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be granted, in part, as more fully set
forth below.
GA530120RO
An examination of the record reveals that the owner's observations,
that a majority of the signatures, starting with the ninth of
thirty-two (32) signatures are signed in the same handwriting, is
accurate. The apartment numbers, in the order listed in the
complaint, are:
24, 23, 64, 24, 42, 34, 55, 51, 3,
65, 32, 61, 24, 45, 53 and 54.
As to a number of tenants, the owner asserts that the apartments 21
and 51 were vacant at the time of the complaint, that the named
signatures of apartments 22, 24, 25, 33, 42, 43, 46, 56, 61 and 64
were not the tenants of record at the time of the complaint, that
the signature of the tenants for apartments 3, 23, 26, 32, 44, 55,
62 and 65 were forged, and that the tenant of apartment 54 was
deceased at the time the subject complaint was filed.
In light of foregoing facts and the additional fact that the
owner's claims on appeal were not challenged, the rent reductions
granted the enumerated apartments, and the corresponding tenants,
are revoked; no further consideration of the complaint is warranted
as to them. Rent arrears may be due the owner from tenants in the
above listed apartments as a result of this order. Any accrued
rent arrears due the owner may be paid in equal monthly install-
ments at the amount of the monthly rent reduction previously
granted, but revoked herein, until the tenant's arrears are
eliminated.
As the remaining tenants, whose signatures appear to be true or
where forgery is not obvious, the Commissioner notes that, while
some of these tenants signed statements to the effect that their
signatures were obtained under false pretenses, they have not
retracted their complaint. The owner's submissions on appeal are
not sufficient to revoke the rent reductions as to them without
further consideration. However, a prospective stay of the rent
reduction is warranted in view of the facts and circumstances; the
stay of the retroactive refund was automatic upon the filing of the
petition. The apartment numbers for these tenants, in the order
listed in the complaint, are: 52, 62, 35, 25, 1, 44, 26 and the
apartment number listed for these apparent true signatures which
was not legible.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the conditions cited were
sufficient to give the owner notice of the conditions found. The
fact that the drug dealers and vandals in the area cause damage to
the subject premises does not abate the owner's responsibility to
make proper repairs, nor does it explain all the conditions found
GA530120RO
in the public areas of the building. The matter must therefore be
remanded to the Rent Administrator for further processing of the
complaint as to the tenants whose signature appear to be true. On
remand, the tenants who want to assert that they did not knowingly
sign the complaint should be afforded the opportunity to withdraw
from the proceedings.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is,
granted, in part, that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the
same hereby is, revoked and the rents restored to pre-reduction
levels, plus lawful increases, as to the enumerated apartments for
whom the tenants' signatures were questionable. Arrears may be due
the owner from these tenants as a result. It is further
ORDERED, that as to the complaint signatures that appear to be true
that they were obtained under false pretenses, the proceedings are
remanded to the Rent Administrator to consider the owner's
allegation, and to ascertain if revocation of the rent reduction
for these tenants is warranted. As to these tenants, it is further
ORDERED, that a prospective stay of the rent reduction is war-
ranted, effective the first day of the month following the issuance
date of this order, in accordance with the above.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
