DHCR Decisions
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.:BB110246RO
Richard Albert
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:AB110832S
PETITIONER
----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 21, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
February 4, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 93-49 222nd Street, Apt. 3T, Queens Village,
NY wherein the Administrator reduced the rent based on an
inspection report which revealed a decrease in services.
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.
This proceeding was commenced February 25, 1986, by the filing of
a complaint of decrease in services by the tenant alleging that her
apartment windows were in need of painting and caulking. On
October 20, 1986, an inspection was conducted by a Division
employee which confirmed the complained of conditions. On February
4, 1987, the Administrator issued the order reducing the rent.
In the PAR, the owner contends that the order is defective on its
face in that window sills do not have panes; that the tenant has
violated a stipulation signed in housing court on January 15, 1987,
which required the tenant to allow access for repairs on February
2 and 3, 1987; that the tenant files multiple complaints then
denies access to the owner to make repairs; that the tenant is
harassing the owner despite the owner's willingness to make
repairs; and, that the order should be rescinded and the tenant
penalized.
-1-
Docket No.: BB-110246-RO
2
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's PAR should be
denied.
The owner is correct that the order states that the window sills in
the bedroom and livingroom have loose panes, cracked, and peeling
paint and allow air seepage. Despite this apparent confusion
between the use of the term window sill and window frame, it is
clear that the owner was sufficiently cognizant of the complained
of condition because the owner states in its PAR that, "In any
case, all problems regarding both the window sills and the windows
are being handled..."
On the issue of access, although the owner says the tenant has
violated the Housing Court Stipulation the owner states in the PAR
that the tenant did grant access on the agreed upon days but that
the contractor was injured and could not finish the job. The
stipulation signed in Housing Court contained a proviso for
restoring the proceeding on motion to the court. The owner, if
need be, could have taken advantage of this procedure. The owner
submits no other evidence to indicate that access had been denied
by the tenant.
Lastly, the owner contends in his PAR that the tenant is harassing
the owner and that the owner is willing to make repairs. In
support of this the owner includes a copy of an open letter to
tenants signed by a former superintendent in which the
superintendent blames the complaints of three tenants in particular
for the fact he is resigning his superintendent position. The
complaining tenant in this proceeding is not mentioned in the
letter. While the owner states that the complaining tenant is
being guided by one of the three tenants cited in the letter, this
has no bearing on the issue of the condition in the apartment or
the Administrator's order.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
it is
ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is denied, and
the Administrator's order issued on February 4, 1987, be and the
same hereby is affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|