GI630080RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
------------------------------------x SJR No.: 7410
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
GI630080RO
Oudhoram Ragoo,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
FF630333OR
PETITIONER
------------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on July 28, 1992 concerning the housing
accommodations known as 1694 Selwyn Avenue, Bronx, New York,
wherein the Rent Administrator denied the owner's application to
restore rent previously reduced under Docket No. DL630055B.
Thereafter, the owner commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court,
pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, in the
nature of mandamus, seeking expeditious processing of the
administrative appeal.
The Rent Administrator had reduced the tenants' rent under
DL630055B based on findings that the "bulkhead area was dirty" and
that the "ABC west entrance door [was] not aligned."
The owner commenced the proceeding hereinunder review by filing
individual rent restoration applications for most, but not all, of
the apartment units for which the rent was reduced, asserting that
the conditions for which the rent reduction had been granted had
been corrected. No applications were filed for apartments STL 2,
STL 4 and 32B.
Twenty-eight (28) tenants signed the acknowledgement that defects
had been corrected. The number of consenting tenants exceeded the
twenty-three tenants originally affected by the order. Some of the
tenants had vacated. Twenty of the tenants, or their successors,
of the apartments originally affected, signed the acknowledgement.
Applications were not filed for the three remaining tenants.
GI630080RO
In support of the applications for rent restoration, the owner also
includes a copy of a report, dated April 27, 1991, prepared by a
registered architect at the behest of the owner, setting forth that
the entrance doors were repaired and that the public areas were
clean.
Two tenants responded to service of the application. They stated,
in substance, that additional conditions required repairs, but they
did not refer to the two services which were the basis for the rent
reduction.
On April 16, 1992, the DHCR conducted an inspection of the subject
premises wherein the DHCR inspector found the same defective
conditions for which the rent was reduced.
The Rent Administrator denied the owner's rent restoration
application on the grounds that the conditions had not been
corrected.
In the petition, the owner points out that various tenants had
acknowledged that the owner had restored services and signed the
tenants' statement of consent. The owner further argues, in
substance, that there was insufficient basis for denying rent
restoration for conditions that recur due to the tenants'
negligence, or the vandalism of unknown individuals, and where, as
here, the owner submitted evidence of measures taken to correct the
deficiencies.
The owner also argues that these items fall under the category of
maintenance which did not warrant a rent reduction, or at most,
assuming the validity of the finding of service reductions, the
rent reductions should have been limited only to those tenants
directly affected.
One tenant filed an answer to the owner's petition. The tenant's
answer does not refer to either of the conditions. Rather, the
tenant voices concerns about apartment services.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be granted for the apartments for which
the applications were filed.
By their statements of consent below, the tenants indicated that
they did not dispute the owner's contention that the owner
corrected the conditions for which the rent was reduced, to the
tenants' satisfaction. The owner reiterates this argument on
appeal.
When a tenant signs a statement of consent, and does not raise
questions regarding the restoration of the services for which the
rent was reduced, DHCR normally restores the rent without
conducting an inspection. As to the two tenants who filed an
GI630080RO
answer below, they confined their comments to several other
services that were allegedly not provided, but they did not
otherwise dispute their signed consent acknowledging that the owner
had restored the services for which the rent was reduced. As a
result, the owner was not on notice that the conditions may have
recurred.
The DHCR normally grants rent restoration under the circumstances
described. The record does not reveal facts to account for the
variance from normal processing.
In light of the record, the Rent Administrator should have granted
the owner's applications to restore rent. For rent stabilized
tenants, the rent is restored effective August 1, 1991, which was
the first rent payment date following service of the owner's
application on the tenants. For rent controlled tenants, the rent
is restored prospectively effective August 1, 1992.
The rent reduction order remains in effect for apartments STL 2,
STL 4 and 32B.
Any rent arrears due the owner from each tenant as a result of this
order shall be paid in equal installments at the amount of each
tenant's monthly rent reduction restored herein, until the arrears
are eliminated.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the Rent and Eviction Law and Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition for administrative review be and
the same hereby is granted, and that the owner's rent restoration
applications be and the same hereby are granted, in accordance with
the above.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
