ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GC 430081 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 430081 RO
:
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
DL 430069 B
LEON SLOAN/JACOBS, ZINNS ET AL.,
PREMISES: 10 Gay Street,
New York, NY
PETITIONERS :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner timely filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on February 7, 1992
concerning the housing accommodations relating to the above-
described docket number wherein the Administrator ordered a rent
reduction based on a finding of a decrease in services.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order
was warranted.
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.
This proceeding was commenced on December 22, 1989 by rent-
stabilized and rent-controlled tenants filing a complaint of a
decrease in building-wide services, alleging numerous defective
conditions in the subject building including, but not limited to,
a roof leak causing major water damage in the walls and peeling and
cracking on the ceiling of the fifth floor.
On January 18, 1990, the Division mailed the owner a copy of
the tenants' complaint.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GC 430081 RO
In an answer filed on February 7, 1990, the owner stated in
substance that "upon examination...all services are being provided
and are acceptable as far as required services."
On March 25, 1991, a physical inspection of the subject
building was conducted by a Division staff member who reported that
there is evidence of water damage and peeling paint and plaster on
the fifth floor walls and ceiling; and that there are missing tiles
on the first floor, in front of the basement door, and around the
radiator riser.
The Division mailed the owner on April 24, 1991 a letter
informing the owner of the above-results of the inspection and
allowing the owner the opportunity within twenty (20) days to
correct the defective conditions and to submit proof of compliance.
On May 14, 1991, the owner filed a letter with the Division
requesting twenty (20) days to "make all necessary repairs."
On June 5, 1991, the owner filed another letter with the
Division, asserting that "the public halls have been plastered and
repainted throughout"; that "the cause of the water damage has been
found and corrected"; and that "the missing tiles on the first
floor, in front of the basement door, and around the radiator riser
have been replaced." The owner submitted a copy of a work invoice
amounting to a sum of $1,300.00, to wit, repairing flashing at
bulkhead to roof to stop leaking ($50.00), plastering and painting
all public halls including 5th floor walls and ceiling ($1,000.00),
and replacing missing tiles on first floor in front of the basement
door and the radiator riser ($250.00).
Thereafter, another on-site inspection of the subject building
was conducted on July 18, 1991 by a Division staff member who
reported evidence of peeling paint and plaster in the fifth floor
public area, on the ceiling near the fixture, on the roof bulkhead
wall, water stains near the fixture, and evidence of missing tiles
in the first floor by the side of the basement door.
On February 7, 1992, the Administrator issued the order
hereunder review, reducing the rent-stabilized rent to the level in
effect prior to the last rent guidelines increase, effective
February 1, 1990, and reducing the maximum legal rent of the rent
controlled tenants by $16.00 (5th floor hall needing paint and
plastering $6.00; water leaks at the bulkhead $5.00; floor covering
on the 1st floor hall $5.00) effective March 1, 1992.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the
Administrator failed to consider that all services were restored
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GC 430081 RO
after the March 25, 1991 inspection and prior to the issuance of
the Administrator's order; and that the issue of the "bulkhead" was
never raised by the tenants in the underlying complaint.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition
should be denied.
The record clearly reveals that the Administrator properly
processed and considered the owner's allegations in the proceeding
below. Although the owner stated in his February 7, 1990 answer to
the tenants' complaint that "all services are being provided and
are acceptable as far as required services", a March 25, 1991 on-
site inspection revealed the existence of defective conditions. On
April 24, 1991, the owner was informed of the results of the
inspection and given the opportunity to correct the defect within
twenty (20) days. On May 14, 1991, the owner requested another
twenty (20) days to "make all necessary repairs" despite his being
served of the tenants' complaint on January 18, 1990. On June 5,
1991, the owner filed another letter with the Division, asserting
completion of repairs and submitting copies of a work invoice
indicating same. However, a July 18,1991 on-site inspection
indicated to the contrary, that defective conditions as set forth
above continue to exist.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator
properly determined that the owner had failed to maintain required
services based on the evidence of the record, including the results
of the March 25, 1991 and July 18, 1991 on-site inspections.
The owner's contention that the issue of the "bulkhead" was
never raised by the tenants in the underlying complaint is without
merit. The tenants' December 22, 1989 complaint mentioned a roof
leak causing major water damage on the walls and peeling and
cracking on the ceiling of the fifth floor. The finding of the
July 18, 1991 inspection that there is evidence of peeling paint
and plaster on the roof bulkhead wall simply demonstrates that the
roof leak originally complained-of has deteriorated.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the
owner's right to file the appropriate application with the Division
for a restoration of rents based upon the restoration of services,
if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GC 430081 RO
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
