Bleak House: Finding Eight

FINDING EIGHT

THE FAILURE OF DHCR TO PROPERLY ADMINISTER THE STATE'S RENT
REGULATORY LAWS CAUSES HARDSHIP FOR THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EVERY
YEAR. IN THE MOST EXTREME CASES, THE DIVISION DIRECTLY
CONTRIBUTES TO THE DISPLACEMENT AND HOMELESSNESS IT IS CHARGED
WITH PREVENTING.


We close our description of the Assembly's investigation by
reprinting a brief case study of what happened to one unfortunate
family when they depended on DHCR in order to keep their home.
The following case was presented in testimony by Russell Engler,
an attorney with South Brooklyn Legal Services. The difficulties
Mr. Engler's office experienced in this case are typical of the
difficulties which many witnesses testified they experienced in
dealing with DHCR.

     "The tenant and her nine children and grandchildren had been
     burned out of their rent-stabilized apartment. They were
     homeless, and living in a shelter. In October 1985, the
     tenant applied for an order reducing her rent to one dollar
     based on the conditions in her apartment due to the fire.

     By early '86, the landlord had repaired the tenant's
     apartment but, from his actions, made clear that he did not
     intend to rent the apartment to her. We assisted the tenant
     in a Housing Court action seeking to have her and her family
     restored to their apartment.

     The court concluded that the main issue was whether the
     apartment still belonged to the tenant. To the attorney in
     our office handling the case, it seemed clear that if DHCR
     issued the rent reduction order, the order would carry
     tremendous weight in influencing the judge to decide for the
     tenant.

     Our office first contacted DHCR by letter in February 1986,
     inquiring about the status of the case. DHCR never responded
     to the letter. We repeatedly contacted DHCR by telephone, by
     letter, in person. We called DHCR over 20 times.

     Sometimes no one answered. Other times someone answered and
     placed us on hold and then no one picked up. If someone did
     speak to us, but learned that we had spoken to a different
     person earlier, we were told that only the original person
     could help us. The original person neither came to the
     telephone or returned the call. When we actually spoke to
     someone about the case, we were told that the case would be
     expedited and a result was imminent.

     Testimony in Housing Court was taken April 9th, May 30th and
     June 30th. DHCR was informed of each date and subpoenaed for
     each date but failed to provide a decision or respond in any
     manner to the subpoenas.

     After the hearing was completed, the judge held the record
     open in case DHCR issued its decision. Again, DHCR was
     contacted and again, there was no response.

     In July, the judge decided against the tenant, leaving her
     and her nine children and grandchildren homeless. This
     result could well have been avoided by reasonable action on
     the part of DHCR. To this day, we have never heard from DHCR
     on the case.

     It is not an exaggeration to say that the current operation
     of DHCR in its inefficiency, if not in its callousness,
     leads directly to eviction and homelessness."