DHCR Decisions
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GA610072RO
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.:
GA610072RO
:
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
EG610202S
CENTRAL PROPERTIES TRUST
C/O NORWAX ASSOCIATES, INC.,
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 13, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on November
21, 1991, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 2979 Marion Avenue, Bronx, N. Y., Apartment
4-A, wherein the Administrator determined that a diminution of
service had occurred and reduced the rent to the level in effect
prior to the last rent guideline increase which commenced before
the effective date of the order. Based on an inspection held on
October 10, 1992, the rent was reduced because of the following
service deficiencies:
(1) lack of vermin control
(2) defective floor covering bathroom
(3) defective medicine cabinet
(4) defective bathroom walls
(5) defective bathroom towel rack
(6) leaks and stains in foyer closet
(7) missing shades and blinds
(8) defective paint and plaster apartment-wide
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GA610072RO
The same inspection showed that a number of other complained-
of services were being maintained by the owner at the time of the
inspection.
The DHCR dismissed petitioner's first PAR, on February 18,
1992, on the ground that the petition was not filed within thirty-
five (35) days after the issuance of the Rent Administrator's
order.
Subsequent thereto, the owner filed a petition in the Supreme
Court, pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
requesting that the Court direct the division to issue a new
determination of the owner's administrative appeal.
In support of its application to reverse the decision on
appeal, the owner annexed a copy of the certified mail receipt,
which was stamped by the United States Postal Service on
December 26, 1991.
Consequently, the DHCR stipulated and agreed to deem the PAR
timely filed and to issue a new order and the Court remanded the
proceedings back to the DHCR for a determination within 90 days.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issue raised by the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly
reduced the rent of the subject apartment.
On appeal, the petitioner asserted, among other things, that
the Rent Administrator's order lacked specificity and failed to set
forth the facts and findings upon which the order was based and
that it is improper for the DHCR to grant a rent reduction for some
services which were not required services on the base date.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code,
"A tenant may apply to the DHCR for a reduc-
tion of the legal regulated rent to the level
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GA610072RO
in effect prior to the most recent guidelines
adjustment, and the DHCR shall so reduce the
rent for the period for which it is found
that the owner has failed to maintain re-
quired services."
Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include
repairs and maintenance.
The record demonstrates that a Notice and Transmittal of
Tenant's Complaint was mailed to the owner on July 18, 1990 at the
owner's correct address but that the owner failed to submit an
answer below.
The owner retained an attorney and the representative filed a
Notice of Appearance in the proceeding, on August 6, 1990, and
requested a number of one month extensions to answer the tenant's
complaint from August 6, 1990 (the date of the appearance) to March
15, 1991, which were granted by the division.
The record before the Rent Administrator, however, is devoid
of any answer submitted on behalf of the owner.
The owner had sixteen months from the date of service of the
tenant's complaint until the issuance of the Administrator's order
to investigate the tenant's complaint and to make the necessary
repairs, but failed to do so.
Since the scope of administrative review is limited to the
facts or evidence which were raised before the Rent Administrator,
the matters raised by the owner in the petition may not now be
considered for the first time on administrative appeal.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator
properly based his determination on the entire record, including
the results of the on-site inspection conducted in the subject
apartment.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the
owner's right to file the appropriate application with the Division
for restoration of rent based upon a restoration of services, if
the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and
the same hereby is, affirmed.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GA610072RO
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
|
|