If your PAR is not determined within 90 days of fil ing, the Rent Stabil ization Law gives you two options:

Transcription

1 State of New York Gertz Plaza Docket Number Division of Housing and Community Renewal Union Hall Street WJ RT Office of Rent Administration Jamaica, NY Issue Date WebSite: wwwnysdhcr.gov (718) /06/2008 Subject Premises: APT NO: VARIOUS 188 E 93RD ST NEW YORK NY DRO DOCKET NO: PAR DOCKET NO: VK OD WJ RT DHCR has received your Petition for Administrative Review (PAR). Please keep this form and state the above ORO and PAR Docket Numbers in any communication with us. If your PAR is not determined within 90 days of fil ing, the Rent Stabil ization Law gives you two options: 1. You may consider the PAR "denied" and within 60 days after this denial, you may begin a court proceeding asking for judicial review under Article 78 of the civil practice laws and rules. - or 2. You may wait for a PAR determination and begin an Article 78 proceeding within 60 days after the actual determination. Because of the large number of fi led PAR's, we are generally unable to determine a PAR within the 90 day period. Since it is DHCR pol icy to issue a final written order and opinion for--every--pkr---e-xpra+n+ng-t-he--dec i sian, -of0tl-ma-y--want -t-o-wa i-t f-o,-ttre---f i na-l- determination before instituting an Article 78 proceeding. Thank you for your patience in awaiting a decision in this matter. p-ffr- To: CASS I E CARTER 188 E. 93RD ST APT. #1 N NEW YORK NY RAR-9 (6/2008) Page 1 of 1

2 State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration Web Site: Gertz Plaza Union Hall Street Jamaica, New York (718) PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (PAR) Docket Number: (For office use only) This form is a petition to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) appealing an Order of a Rent Administrator. It must be completed, attached to a copy of the Order being appealed in accordance with the Instructions on Side Two of this form, and filed with DHCR. Section A. Identification of the Order being appealed: 1. Case Docket No.: 2. Date Order Issued: 3. DHCR Issuing Office: Gertz Plaza Rent Office Westchester Rent Office Nassau Rent Office Section B. Identification of premises involved in the Order: 4. Number and Street: Apt. No.: or Building-Wide City, State, Zip Code: Garden Apartment Complex Multi-building Complex Section C. Identification of Petitioner: Identification of Petitioner's Attorney/Authorized Representative: Petitioner's Name Name of Attorney/Authorized Representative ( ) ( ) Daytime Telephone Number Daytime Telephone Number Petitioner's Mailing address Number and Street Apt. No. Mailing Address (No. and Street) City, State, Zip Code City, State, Zip Code 7. Petitioner is the (check one): Owner Tenant Sub-tenant Authorized owner representative* Authorized tenant representative* Other (* A signed authorization must be attached) Managing Agent for Owner Section D. Statement of Petitioner: 8. I, the undersigned, object to the Order identified in Section A above, and request that it be (check one): Reversed (cancelled completely) Modified (changed in part) 9. I believe the error of fact and/or law in the Order being appealed is (attach additional sheet(s) if necessary): Item 10. The names and addresses of all other parties affected by the Order being appealed are as follows: Note: If you are the tenant (or subtenant) or the tenant's representative, provide in the space below only the owner's (and the prime tenant's, if relevant) name and address. If more than one owner is involved or there is a new owner, provide this information for each owner. If you are the owner or the owner's representative, provide in the space below the names and addresses of all tenants and other parties (e.g., prior owner, subtenant) affected by the Order. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary. Be sure to attach a complete copy of the Order being appealed. Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Name Address Section E. Affirmation or Verification (You must complete either the verification or the affirmation. See instructions on the reverse side of this form before completing this section): Affirmation (Does not require notarization): I have read the foregoing petition and any attachments thereto and I affirm that the same is true to my own knowledge except as to those matters which I have stated to be based on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. False statements made in this petition may subject me to the penalties provided by law. Name of Petitioner (please print) Verification (Requires notarization): State of New York, County of ) S.S.: Signature of Petitioner / / Date (Name of Petitioner), being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he (she) is the petitioner in the foregoing petition ; that he/she has read the foregoing petition, and any attachments thereto, and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his (her) own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief and that as to those matters he (she) believes it to be true. Sworn to before me this day of, 20. Signature of Petitioner (sign in presence of notary) RAR-2 (9/00) Internet Notary Public or Commissioner of Deeds

3 Cassie Carter 188 E 93 rd Street # New York, NY State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration Gertz Plaza Union Hall Street Jamaica, NY October 2008 Re: Docket #VK OD Premises: 188 E 93rd Street New York, NY Administrator: Enclosed are one original and one copy of a Petition for Administrative Review filed against the above-referenced Order. Please note that I, as Tenant Association Secretary, will be representing myself and the following tenants of 188 E 93 rd Street during the proceeding: Randy Lockard (Apt #) Pauline Winans (Apt #) Ludovica Villar-Hauser (Apt #) Gregory Murphy (Apt #) Vincent Appow (Apt #) Monique Rivera (Apt #) Jennifer Misner (Apt #) Terry Doktor (Apt #) Louise Doktor (Apt #) Gilda Giordano (Apt #) Signed authorizations from each tenant, along with a complete list of the above tenants names and addresses, are enclosed. Sincerely, Cassie Carter, Secretary 188 E 93 rd Street Tenants Association

4 Cassie Carter 188 E 93rd Street New York, NY State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration Gettz Plaza Union Hai Street Jamaica, NY Re: Docket #VK D Administrator: I, the undersigned, authorize Dr. Cassie Carter as my representative in the filing of this petition for administrative review against the Order issued under docket number VK D. Cassie Carter

5 Ludovica Villar-Hauser 188 E 93rd Street #2B New York, NY State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration Gertz Plaza Union Hall Street Jamaica, NY Re: Docket #VK OD Administrator: I, the undersigned, authorize Dr. Cassie Carter as my representative in the filing of this petition for administrative review against the Order issued under docket number VK OD. Ludovica Villar-Hauser Â

6 Gregory Murphy 188 E 93rd Street #2B New York, NY State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration Gertz Plaza Union Hall Street Jamaica, NY Re: Docket #VK OD Administrator: I, the undersigned, authorize Dr. Cassie Carter as my representative in the filing of this petition for administrative review against the Order issued under docket number VK OD.

7 Vincent Appow 188 E 93rd Street #2N New York, NY State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration Gertz Plaza Union Hall Street Jamaica, NY Re: Docket #VK OD Administrator: I, the undersigned, authorize Dr. Cassie Carter as my representative in the filing of this petition for administrative review against the Order issued under docket number VK OD. Vincent Appow

8 Monique Rivera 188 E 93rd Street #2A New York, NY State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration Gertz Plaza Union Hall Street Jamaica. NY Re: Docket #VK-4lOOOl -OD Administrator: I, the undersigned, authorize Dr. Cassie Carter as my representative in the filing of this petition for administrative review against the Order issued under docket number VK OD. Monique &era

9 Jennifer Misner 188 E 93rd Street #40 New York, NY State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration Gertz Plaza Union Hall Street Jamaica, NY Re: Docket #VK OD Administrator: I, the undersigned, authorize Dr. Cassie Carter as my representative in the filing of this petition for administrative review against the Order issued under docket number VK OD.

10 Terry Doktor 188 E 93rd Street #3J New York, NY State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration Gertz Plaza Union Hall Street Jamaica, NY Re: Docket #VK OD Administrator: I the undersigned, authorize Dr. Cassie Carter as my representative in the filing of this petition for administrative review against the Order issued under docket number VK-

11 Louise Doktor 188 E 93rd Street #3J New York. NY State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration Gertz Plaza Union Hall Street Jamaica, NY Re: Docket #VK OD Administrator: I the undersigned, authorize Dr. Cassie Carter as my representative in the filing of this petition for administrative review against the Order issued under docket number VK OD. Louise Doktor

12 Gilda Giordano 188 E 93rd Street #1 B New York, NY State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration Gertz Plaza Union Hall Street Jamaica, NY Re: Docket WK OD Administrator: I, the undersigned, authorize Dr. Cassie Carter as my representative in the filing of this petition for administrative review against the Order issued under docket number VK OD. Gilda Giordano

13 Randolph Lockard 188 E 93rd Street #I 1 New York, NY State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration Gertz Plaza Union Hall Street Jamaica, NY Re: Docket #VK OD Administrator: I the undersigned, authorize Dr. Cassie Carter as my representative in the filing of this petition for administrative review against the Order issued under docket number VK- Randolph Lockard

14 Pauline C. Winans 188 E 93rd Street #I0 New York, NY State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration Gertz Plaza Union Hall Street Jamaica, NY Re: Docket #VK OD Administrator: I, the undersigned, authorize Dr. Cassie Carter as my representative in the filing of this petition for administrative review against the Order issued under docket number VK OD. Pauline C. Winans

15 Web Site: I Mailing Address of Teuant: Mailing Address of OwnerIOwner's Rep.: MED, LLC Name: Various Name: do Kucker & Bruh, LLP Number & Number & Street: 188 E 93rd Street Street: 747 Third Avenue City, State, City, State, Zip Code New York, NY Zip Code: New York, NY ' -1là à à à à aã à Subject Building: (If different from tenant's mailing address) - Same As Above - Number and Street Apt. No. City, State, Zip Code Applicable Regulations: [ ] Section of the Rent and Eviction Regulations (NYC-RC) [X} Section 25.4(d) and (e) of the Rent Stabilized Code (NYV-RS) Determination: After consideration of all the evidence in the record, the Rent Administrator finds that: The owner is grantedpermission to eliminate the rear courtyard. A rent reduction of 10% per apartment per month is warranted. "See Attachment",: - Issue Date Lilia Albano Rent Administrator

16 Docket No. VK OD A T TACHMENT On November 2, 2007, the owner filed an application for permission to reduce the square foot area of the lot in the rear of the building. The owner states that the " Lot " Area reduced was used to increase the lobby entrance area at the rear of the building. The owner states that the. ~vemises were expanded to provide additional space for the ground floor tenancies. The expansion allows tenants to enter the building earlier, by walking through an inside passage, rather than through an open " Lot jj space. Owner also states that due to the new lobby entrance in the rear of the building the owner will be able to expand the commercial rent roll, thereby increasing the portion that Commercial tenants would share/offset of any future MCI increases. Owner also states the income generated by Commercial tenancies will serve to provide additional funds for repairs and other amenities. The owner states that the previous area was used to solely enter and exit the premises. There were no facilities for tenants to gather (e.g. no benches, fountains or table provided by the owner). The area also contained garbage cans. The owner responded to a DHCR inquiry that the garbage cans were relocated to the basement. Owner further states that some tenants complained about the change and a complaint alleging a decrease in services was filed. An order was issued under Docket No. VC B and a rent reduction was imposed. The owner was directed in the rent reduction order to either restore the rear courtyard space or file an application to modify the service (which is the object of this application). The owner presumes that /he rent reduction was issued because the previous " Lot " area was larger than the portion of the " Lot " now being used as apassageway to enter the building. It is noted however, that a DHCR inspection held under the "B" docket found that the rear courtyard had been completely eliminated. The owner is not adverse to a rent reduction maintaining that the issue is not whether the service (rear courtyard) can be discontinued, but rather, what the value of the discontinued service is. The owner cited in support of its premise other cases where a service was changed or discontinued in exchange for a reduction in rent. Various tenants responded as a group via the Tenant Association and individually in opposition to the landlord's application. Tenants basically stated that the elimination of the building's rear courtyard not only eliminated the building's only amenity but also ventilation and lighting of the hallways and stairs, tenant access to outdoor space, and a safe place to dispose of garbage. One tenant agreed to the change yet, wants to be informed by DHCR of any changes to her rent. Determination: The owner is hereby grantedpermission to eliminate the rear courtyard. The rent regulated tenants are granted a rent reduction of 10% per month per apartment. Owner must also file an application with this agency to restore the rents reduced under VC B.

17 State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration Gertz Plaza Union Hall Street Jamaica, New York Web Site: Notice of Right to Administrative Review This Notice explains your right to appeal, seeking review of orders issued by a Rent Administrator. If you believe that an order is based on an error of law andor fact, as an aggrieved party you have the right to ask the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) to review the order based on your claim of error. This request is called a Petition for Administrative Review, and is referred to as a PAR. If you wish to file a PAR, please read the information and instructions below and follow them carefully. Further details may be found in Operational Bulletin 84-1 governing PARS and in the instructions printed on the reverse side of the form used for filing a PAR. Who mav File a PAR: An owner, tenant, or other party affected by an order, or an authorized representative of such person(s), may file a PAR. Two or more affected owners or tenants may join in filing a PAR. The DHCR encourages joint filings by affected parties filing on common grounds. How to File a PAR: 1. Use the correct form. PARS must be filed in duplicate using DHCR form RAR-2, in accordance with the instructions on the form. PARS filed on other forms or by letter will not be accepted. 2. You must attach a complete copy of the order which you are appealing to the original of your PAR. Time Limit for Filing a PAR: The PAR must be either hand-delivered or mailed to DHCR at Gertz Plaza, Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York If the PAR is hand-delivered, it must be received no later than 35 days after the date the order was issued. The date issued usually appears in the lower left portion of the order. 2. If the PAR is mailed, it must be postmarked no later than 35 days after the date the order was issued. If you use a private postage meter and the envelope does not have an official U.S. Postal Service postmark, the PAR must be received by the DHCR office not later than 35 days after the order's issuance date, or you will be required to submit other adequate proof (such as an official Postal Service receipt or certificate of mailing) that the PAR was mailed within the 35-day limit. PARS fded after the time limit will be considered untimely and will be dismissed. How to Obtain the PAR Form: You may request the PAR form RAR-2 by coming to any DHCR Borough Rent Office listed below or to the Office of Rent Administration's main office at Gertz Plaza, Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York You may also request that the form be mailed to you by calling (718) Please note that any delay resulting from mailed delivery of the form to you does not extend the time limit for filing the PAR. Lower Manhattan 25 Beaver Street 5th Floor New York, NY Bronx 1 Fordham Plaza 2nd Floor Bronx, NY 104% Upper Manhattan 163 West 125th St. 5th Floor New York, NY Queens Union Hall St. 4th Floor Jamaica, NY Brooklyn 55 Hanson Place 7th Floor Brooklyn, NY Staten Island 60 Bay St. 7th Floor Staten Island, NY 10301

18 Cassie Carter 188 E 93 rd Street # New York, NY State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration Gertz Plaza Union Hall Street Jamaica, NY October 2008 Re: Docket #VK OD Administrator: In Docket #VK OD, the administrator granted the owner of 188 E 93 rd Street permission to eliminate the building s rear courtyard based upon inaccurate information submitted by the owner. Therefore, the administrator s decision must be reversed. It seems probable that an administrative error occurred that resulted in the Tenant Association s response to the owner s application being omitted from the record. The Tenant Association s 155-page response included a 14-page letter, extensive supporting exhibits, and RTP-3A forms from apartments #1B, #2B, #2A, #1I, #3J, #1N, #1O, #2N, and #4O. The package was mailed on December 5, 2007, via certified mail, receipt # The package was delivered to DHCR at 12:15 pm on December 6, A printout of the USPS delivery confirmation is enclosed (Exhibit II). Some (but not all) tenants received DHCR form RA-78.1a, Request for Additional Information/Evidence, dated 2/5/08 (Exhibit HH-1). The Tenant Association representative who filed the original response on behalf of apartments #1B, #2B, #2A, #1I, #3J, #1N, #1O, #2N, and #4O did not receive this form, and the form did not give any indication what information/evidence the administrator required. Therefore, the Tenant Association representative responded with a letter dated 2/17/08 (Exhibit HH-2) accompanied by copies of RTP-3A and followup letters from the tenants of apartments #1B, #2B, #2A, #1I, #3J, #1N, #1O, #2N, and #4O (Exhibit HH-3). The Tenant Association representative s letter described the materials that had previously been

19 submitted and asked the administrator for clarification as to what information/evidence was needed. The letter stated that a copy of the original response would be supplied if the administrator had not received the original package. Tenants received no further communication from the administrator until the decision was returned. Because the written decision makes no reference to any point made in the Tenant Association s original response, and because the written decision repeats the language of the one-paragraph followup letters (Exhibit HH-3), it seems clear the decision did not consider any of the details of the Tenant Association s original response and was based solely upon statements made by the owner. As the Tenant Association s original response made clear, elimination of the courtyard eliminated services required by law. DHCR cannot allow an owner to eliminate services required by law. It is clear DHCR would deny an owner s application to eliminate all of the windows in an apartment. In the present case, all of the windows opening onto the public hallways and stairs were eliminated. The lobby doors opening upon the rear courtyard provided light and ventilation of the public hallways and a safe place to dispose of garbage, as required by law. Elimination of the courtyard resulted in the almost total elimination of light and ventilation of the public hallways and stairs, as well as the elimination of a safe place for tenants to dispose of garbage. The administrator s written decision does not indicate that an inspection was conducted to evaluate the light and ventilation of the hallways and stairs or the safety of the cellar garbage room, nor does the written decision indicate that the administrator considered the abundant evidence of the owner s misrepresentations supplied by the tenants in our 155-page objection to the application. Therefore, one must conclude the decision was based solely upon information submitted by the owner. As explained in detail in the tenants original response objecting to the owner s application, the owner submitted a tremendous amount of false information throughout the application. Some of the most significant misrepresentations are as follows: 1) The owner claimed the courtyard existed for ingress and egress only. This claim is Tenant PAR Re: Docket #VK OD - Page 2 of 11

20 not supported by historical fact. The courtyard existed since the buildings were constructed circa 1876, but the residential entrances to the buildings did not pass through the courtyard until sometime in the mid twentieth century. (In fact, as late as 1902, there were latrines in the courtyard, according to Housing Preservation and Development records.) The courtyard existed, as required since the earliest Tenement House laws, to provide adequate light, ventilation, sanitation, and tenant access to outdoor space. 2) As stated in the administrator s written decision, the owner claimed that the Lot Area reduced was used to increase the lobby entrance area at the rear of the building, and that this was an improvement because it allows tenants to enter the building earlier, by walking through and inside passage, rather than through an open Lot space. This argument is false partly because it is based on the assumption that the courtyard existed only for ingress and egress. More significantly, there is and was already a main lobby tenants entered from the street (Exhibit L), and the modified configuration is decidedly not an improvement. Previously, tenants entered the main lobby then passed through an open courtyard containing a formal garden with flowers, trees, ivy, and decorative brick and iron work, to enter the bright and airy lobbies of the two courtyard buildings. Now, tenants pass through a dark, mazelike hallway with multiple level changes (Exhibit V), and through jail-like metal doors, to enter the even darker ex-courtyard building lobbies, which have been severely reduced in size and smell like rotting garbage and sewage. The owner s claim that this is an improvement is not true. The enlargement benefits only the owner by increasing the commercial rent roll. 3) The owner s claim that "this modification will greatly benefit the tenants" because it will reduce the burden of MCI rent increases is absurd. First, the owner is making a concerted effort to deregulate all of the apartments as rapidly as possible, and the success of this endeavor will eliminate the possibility of any MCI increases in the near future. Between 1998 and 2003, the building averaged 4-5 vacancies per year. Under current ownership, turnover has increased to about 20 vacancies per year, thanks to the short-term leases and harassment tactics the owner uses to expedite deregulation. (Currently active harassment complaints include docket numbers Tenant PAR Re: Docket #VK OD - Page 3 of 11

21 UD410008HL, UD410009HL, UD HL, UD HL, and UD HL). Second, the Shalom Tenants Alliance has done a great deal of research on this owner, and it turns out they rarely, if ever, apply for MCI increases in the 140+ apartment buildings they own. Third, according to DHCR's "Useful Life Schedule for Major Capital Improvements" (Fact Sheet #33), there is nothing the owner can get an MCI increase for within the next decade or two. There is no benefit to tenants. 4) The owner falsely argues that there were no formal facilities in the courtyard. The courtyard held a formal garden with flowers, trees, ivy, and bushes, with decorative brick and ironwork to contain it. Exhibit C shows what the garden looked like before it was destroyed by the current owner. As for the lack of benches, fountains, or tables in the courtyard for tenant meetings, the Great Lawn at Central Park likewise lacks such facilities, yet people gather there anyway. Now the building lacks any public area large enough for tenants to hold a meeting. 5) The owner falsely claims the total area of outdoor space was 380 square feet, of which 80 square feet consisted of the garbage cans. When the owner filed plans for Job # with the Department of Buildings on 3/25/05, they specified the area of enlargement as 810 square feet (Exhibit EE). The courtyard extended the entire width of 1656 and 1658 Third Avenue (Block 1521, Lots 38 and 39), and its depth extended from the back of the buildings to the lot line abutting 186 E 93rd Street. Exhibit FF is the deed to the property, which shows the legal dimensions of the property. The deed shows that the lots of 1656 and 1658 Third Avenue are, together, 50 1/4 wide. The plans submitted by the owner show that the area of expansion, a/k/a the courtyard, was deep. Therefore, the courtyard was more like 796 or 810 square feet, not 380 square feet as the owner claims. 6) As for the area occupied by trashcans, prior to the current owner s ownership, there were two trash cans beside the main lobby door and a metal trash bin in the corner of the courtyard (Exhibit GG). The metal trash bin was about 6' long and 3' deep, and it occupied the space between the stairs from the main lobby, the wall of 186 E 93rd Street (the townhouse next door), and the garden enclosure. Recycling bins were added around 2000 or 2001; there was one for glass, one for metal, and one Tenant PAR Re: Docket #VK OD - Page 4 of 11

22 for paper, and the three bins occupied about the same amount of space as the metal trash bin and were located between the lobby door of 1658 Third Avenue and the window of Apartment M. These containers, occupying approximately 18 square feet, were sufficient until the current owner took ownership in When the current owner took over, garbage suddenly overflowed in the courtyard and garbage cans proliferated. At this point, the owner asserts, the garbage cans occupied 80 square feet, or about double the space previously used excluding an additional square feet occupied by piles of garbage bags, recycling, and discarded kitchen appliances that would not fit inside the many, many trash cans. The excessive amount of space occupied by garbage corresponded to the current owner s management policies and was not a condition original to the building. 7) The owner misrepresented the buildings as being four stories instead of five stories plus cellar, as shown on the buildings Certificates of Occupancy (Exhibit BB). The height of the buildings is an important factor in determining the requirements for light, ventilation, fire safety, and many other issues according to the Multiple Dwelling Law and NYC Building Code. 8) The owner falsely stated that the building is fireproof, when in fact the buildings are combustible Old Law tenements, as shown in the Certificates of Occupancy (Exhibit BB). This misrepresentation is quite significant because the construction project that eliminated the courtyard severely compromised fire safety. 9) The owner stated that the construction plans were approved by the Department of Buildings. This is not correct. The plans were self-certified by the owner s architect, and multiple audits and inspections have demonstrated that these plans did not comply with NYC Building Code or Multiple Dwelling Law. In February 2006, the violations were serious enough that the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the Department of Buildings, and the NYC Fire Department shut down the project and installed 24-hour fire watch guards for a month. At the time the owner filed their application with DHCR, construction had again been halted by the Department of Buildings due to yet more audit objections. Therefore, the owner did not tell the truth in claiming the plans were approved by the Department of Tenant PAR Re: Docket #VK OD - Page 5 of 11

23 Buildings. 10) The architectural plans the owner submitted with their application do not reflect what the owner built. The plans omit existing safety hazards and include safety protections that do not exist. a) The cellar floor plan for 1658 Third Avenue shows exits from the cellar stair enclosure and garbage room enclosure leading to the sidewalk vault exit. These exits do not exist. There is no way out of the garbage room except via the existing 26 -wide stairs to the residential lobby. There is a self-closing door at the foot of the cellar stairs that opens into the stairwell. It would not take much to block that door and trap a tenant in the cellar. b) The first floor plan shows sprinklers in the new residential hallway and entrances to the ex-courtyard buildings. There are no sprinklers. c) The first floor plan shows illuminated exit signs in the new residential hallway. There are no illuminated exit signs. d) The first floor plan shows double doors opening onto the street from the main lobby. Only one door opens; the other is bolted shut. This is significant because the exit door from the new commercial space opens into the residential hallway. During an emergency, not only might tenants of 46 apartments need to get out that one door, but also up to 75 preschool children from the commercial space. e) The cellar floor plan for 1658 Third Avenue shows the "garbage room" at the rear of the cellar space, at the end of a long hallway along an imaginary "utility closet." This is a misrepresentation. There is a space partitioned off at the rear of the cellar, but it is padlocked shut and contains the owner's painting and construction materials as well as discarded appliances. (It is illegal to store flammable materials in the cellar of a tenement building.) f) The cellar floor plan for for 1658 Third Avenue suggests a fireproof partition between the restaurant's cellar area and the area containing the garbage room. The partition is not fireproof; it is one layer of drywall, containing multiple Tenant PAR Re: Docket #VK OD - Page 6 of 11

24 openings, attached to wood studs. g) The cellar floor plan for 1658 Third Avenue also does not show that the stairs from the restaurant kitchen (previously apartment M) to the cellar are illegal, unenclosed stairs (Exhibit X3). Should a fire break out in the restaurant kitchen, there is nothing to stop it from spreading to the cellar. Because the partition separating the restaurant s side of the cellar from the garbage room is not fireproof, such a fire would spread to the garbage room. There is also a new opening in the party wall separating the cellar of 1658 Third Avenue from the cellar of 1660 Third Avenue. A kitchen fire could spread through both cellars. 11) None of the cases the owner cites as "guidelines" for rent reductions are relevant, because none of them address impairments of the Warranty of Habitability, and because DHCR may not allow the owner to eliminate services required by law. Weitzner v. DHCR might be relevant if egress was an issue in this case, but it s not. The matter of 9 E 9th St might be relevant if tenants were left without heat when the fireplaces were eliminated Yellowstone Blvd deals with a parking lot, Various Tenants of London Terrace is about elevator operators, another case is about a freight elevator, and another is about a swimming pool. None of these amenities are required by law. In contrast, light, ventilation, sanitation, and access to outdoor space are, according to more than 100 years of housing regulations, and they cannot be replaced by a rent reduction. 12) A relevant case is the 1987 PAR (Docket #BH410342RO) of owner Irving Stern. Stern applied to DHCR to eliminate the service of central air conditioning, claiming the expense of replacing the broken system was cost prohibitive. DHCR denied the petition, stating, "it would be inconsistent with the rent laws and regulations to sanction the elimination of air-conditioning as a required/essential service, particularly where the subject building has been remodeled so as to decrease access to window openings and cross ventilation, and where the availability of airconditioning service may have been a prime factor in tenants choosing to rent the apartments in the first instance." Tenant PAR Re: Docket #VK OD - Page 7 of 11

25 The Stern case is directly applicable for two reasons. First, warranty of habitability is at stake, in that the eliminated service adversely impacted ventilation. Second, it recognizes that the service may have been a prime factor in tenants choosing to rent the apartments in the first place. Both of these considerations bear upon the application to eliminate the courtyard at 188 E 93 rd Street. The owner has eliminated the courtyard, thereby eliminating ventilation, light, sanitation, and access to outdoor space. All tenants party to Docket # VC B also considered the courtyard to be a primary reason for renting an apartment at 188 E 93rd Street. The owner presented false information to persuade DHCR to believe the reduction of services is "minimal." It is not "minimal. When the restaurant tenant operated a gasoline fueled pressure washer in the cellar, the entire M-P building (1658 Third Avenue) was filled with dangerous levels of carbon monoxide, according to FDNY. There was no way to ventilate the hallways and lobbies of the building, and it took 6-8 hours to clear the air enough that the CO detectors stopped going off. That is not "minimal." When a power outage occurred on the Upper East Side and tenants of 188 E 93rd Street had to navigate the stairs and new, maze-like hallway in pitch-blackness, it was not minimal. When tenants must traverse a dangerously steep and narrow stair (Exhibit U) into a cellar with no secondary egress every day just to get rid of their trash, it is not minimal. Light and ventilation of 188 E 93 rd Street s public hallways and stairs were inadequate to begin with. These are Old Law tenements that lack the hallway windows that are mandatory in buildings just a few years newer. According to 1902 inspection records, the bulkhead skylights at the top of the stairs failed to provide adequate ventilation; the skylights have not been improved, and the windows in the bulkheads have since been sealed over. The doors opening onto the rear courtyard provided the only light and ventilation to the hallways and stairs. Now there is no light or ventilation of the hallways and stairs. Additionally, the courtyard was the only safe place on the property to dispose of and store trash. Now trash is stored in the cellar, creating multiple hazards and adding garbage odor to the reek of the existing open sewer pit. With no ventilation, the stench is overwhelming. Tenant PAR Re: Docket #VK OD - Page 8 of 11

26 The administrator did not consider any of these facts, but relied only upon the owner s misrepresentations in granting the owner permission to eliminate the courtyard. Therefore the order must be revoked. Thank you for your time and care in considering our petition. Sincerely, Cassie Carter Secretary, 188 E 93rd Street Tenants Association Exhibits Enclosed Cc: Randy Lockard Pauline Winans Ludovica Villar-Hauser Gregory Murphy Vincent Appow Monique Rivera Jennifer Misner Terry Doktor Louise Doktor Gilda Giordano Shalom Tenants Alliance Jon Wallach, DHCR Tenant PAR Re: Docket #VK OD - Page 9 of 11

27 Parties Represented in this Filing: Cassie Carter 188 E 93 rd Street, Apt. # New York, NY Ludovica Villar-Hauser 188 E 93 rd Street, Apt. # New York, NY Gregory Murphy 188 E 93 rd Street, Apt. # New York, NY Vincent Appow 188 E 93 rd Street, Apt. # New York, NY Monique Rivera 188 E 93 rd Street, Apt. # New York, NY Terry Doktor 188 E 93 rd Street, Apt. # New York, NY Louise Doktor 188 E 93 rd Street, Apt. # New York, NY Gilda Giordano 188 E 93 rd Street, Apt. # New York, NY Randolph Lockard 188 E 93 rd Street, Apt. # New York, NY Pauline Winans 188 E 93 rd Street, Apt. # New York, NY Jennifer Misner 188 E 93 rd Street, Apt. # New York, NY Signed authorizations are attached. Tenant PAR Re: Docket #VK OD - Page 10 of 11

28 Index of Exhibits AUTHORIZATION STATEMENTS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED EXHIBITS: Exhibit C Exhibit L Exhibit U Exhibit V Exhibit X3: Exhibit BB Exhibit EE Exhibit FF Exhibit GG 188 E 93rd Street courtyard and garden prior to current ownership Courtyard lobby entrances looking towards main lobby entrance before, and enclosed tunnel hallway after horizontal enlargement project Steep, narrow cellar stairs tenants must use to dispose of trash Photographs of the new hallway and signs stating that the courtyard area is off-limits to tenants Photograph of the unenclosed stair connecting Ecco-La Restaurant s kitchen to the cellar of 188 E 93rd Street. Certificates of Occupancy Application for Job # showing area of enlargement as 810 square feet Deed to 188 E 93rd Street Photo of the trash bin NEW EXHIBITS: Exhibit HH DHCR s request for additional information: HH (1) HH (2) HH (3) DHCR form RA-78.1a Request for Additional Information/Evidence Tenant Association Representative s letter in response to Request for Additional Information/Evidence DHCR forms RTP-3A with tenant letters Exhibit II Confirmation of delivery of original Tenant Association response Tenant PAR Re: Docket #VK OD - Page 11 of 11

29 Exhibit C Before MED LLC took over the building, 188 E 93rd Street had a beautiful courtyard and garden with flowering rhododendrons, maple trees, hosta, and ivy. All three building lobbies opened onto the courtyard, and tenants with rear windows enjoyed a lovely view. Passers-by would stop on the street to admire our garden through the lobby doors. The courtyard and garden were unique building features.

30 Exhibit L Before After

31 Exhibit Before the courtyard was eliminated, tenants disposed of trash in a trash bin in the courtyard. Since August 2006, tenants have been required to carry their trash down a steep, narrow stair into the cellar. The cellar stair enclosure is 26 wide at its narrowest point. It is necessary for tenants to walk sideways down the stairs when carrying garbage to the cellar for disposal. The door to the cellar is hung at the edge of the top stair and is self-closing, posing a risk that the door will swing shut and knock tenants down the stairs.

32 Exhibit V

33 Exhibit X3 Tenement Conditions: Lack of fire partitions in cellar Unenclosed stair from restaurant kitchen into cellar shared with residential trash room The partition enclosing the residential garbage room can be seen on the left side of the photo, and the opening in the party wall visible at the back, right.

34

35

36

37 Application Data Page 1 of 2 4/15/2005 BIS Menu Bldg Info Search Property Profile Property Permits Application Data Back FAQs Glossary Apr 15, 2005 NYC Department of Buildings Application Data Premises: 188 EAST 93 STREET MANHATTAN Filed At: 188 EAS Job No: Document: 01 OF 1 Job Type: A1 ALTERA BIN: Block: 1 Items Required Plumbing Insp Doc / Plans Received Schedule A Schedule B All Permits Document Overview Plan Exam Overview Fee / Accounting Overview C/O Application Summary * JOB PROFESSIONALLY CERTIFIED * Location: Block: 1521 Lot(s): 40 BIN: C.B.No: 108 Apt No: Use: OTHER SPECIFIC FLOORS: 001 CEL Work Types Submitted: PL-EQ-OT Applicant: Barujel Marcelo Phone: Marcelo Barujel ARCHITECT 347 Fifth Avenue, 803B, New York, NY Prof Title: RA Lic No: Filing Representative: NONE Phone: -- OT DESCRIPTION: GEN.CONSTRUCTN. Pre-Filed: 03/25/2005 Date Filed: 03/25/2005 Last Action: PERMIT-PARTIAL 04/14/20 Fees: STANDARD Estimated Total Cost: $90, Additional Considerations: Directive 14: N Old Code: N Quality Housing: N Site Safety Infill Zoning: N Landmark: N LL5: N LL16 Single Room Occup.: N Loft Review: N Declaration: Page: Reel: Little 'E' Restrictions: N/A Change to C. of O: OCCUPANCY/USE - ROOM COUNT/DWELLING UNITS - EGRESS ENLARGEMENT: HORIZONTAL ENL. SQ. FOOTAGE: 810 Structural Stability Affected: Y C of O Status: AMENDED Partial Demo: N Job Description: Change to use at 1st Floor from Class 'A' APT's to commercial. Horizontal Enlargement at 1656 and rd Ave at 1st Floor. of O # 65686, # 41053, # Construction Equipment: FENCE CONST MATERIAL: wood Plans Submitted: ZO - AR - PL Zoning Dist: C1-9 Map No.: 006b Occupancy Classification: EXISTING: RES PROPOSED: RES Construction Classification: EXIST OLD CODE: 3 PROP OLD CODE: 3

38 Application Data Page 2 of 2 4/15/2005 Building Dimension: No. Stories: 5 Street Frontage: Height: 50 Dwelling Units: 48 Total Gross Area of Building: 22,045 Sq. Ft. Fill: Site Area Characteristics: Open Spaces: Plaza: Arcade: Parking: Loading Berths: Parking Spaces: Loading Berths: Fire Protection Equipment: SD: SP: FA: Metes and Bounds: Street Status: PUBLIC - LEGAL WIDTH 100 Beginning at a point on the NORTHEAST side of THIRD AVENUE Distant Ft. WEST of the corner formed by the intersection of THIRD AVENUE and EAST 93RD STREET RUNNING THENCE S FT. THENCE W 69 FT. RUNNING THENCE N FT. THENCE E 69 FT. Owner: PARTNERSHIP Non-Profit Flag: N Hyman Sheila Member Med LLC 226 East 54th Street New York NY OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATION: N OCCUPANCY NOTIFICATION: N Comments: I hereby state that I have exercised a professional standard of care in certifying that the filed application is complete and in acc applicable laws, including the rules of the Department of Buildings, as of this date. I am aware the Commissioner will rely upon accuracy of this statement. I have notified the owner that this application has been professionally certified. If an audit or other e discloses non-compliance, I agree to notify the owner of the remedial measures that must be taken to meet legal requirements realize that any misrepresentation or falsification of facts made knowingly or negligently by me, my agents or employees, or by my knowledge, will render me liable for legal and disciplinary action by the Department of Buildings and other appropriate auth including termination of participation in the professional certification procedures at the Department of Buildings. SEE ATTACHE POC-1. Items Required Plumbing Insp Doc / Plans Received Schedule A Schedule B All Permits Document Overview Plan Exam Overview Fee / Accounting Overview C/O Application Summary If you have any questions please review these Frequently Asked Questions, the Glossary, or call the 311 Citizen Service Center by dialing 311 or (212) NEW YORK outside of New York City. BIS Menu Bldg Info Search Property Profile Property Permits Application Data Back Department of Buildings Home Page NYC.gov Home Page Mayor's Office City Agencies Services News and Features City Life Contact Us Search

39

40

41

42

43

44

45 Original Trash Bins at 188 E 93rd Street

46 Sta& ofno Ydl Dnisior of Eo$ilg.nd CobboDlly I OEe ofrat Adnirisaad@ w.l Site: rwdh6.6rl1c,dy,e M.llhg Ad.lr6r of T D.lli ii.*! \,, *"rr@rco \ -!eu!j Menir! Addr6! otom.r/omut Ro: subjel Buildbg (rd6.dr A@ 'adrt m.ili!8 add,ss): No!.: ltto! rr. tl. tppucul h lblr DttF, y..r f.llue b obpt ilrl tbl r.qrd E.y Eut b D _ Order dkblllllg yolt rppltodod, h whol. or lr!rr( Il yor re Dot tb. rpdll-lt! fr Uur. ro codplynfll r4!lt h. d.l.rbhrdor br&d rol.t o! lhe hfor.do! b tl rdrd. Odr n.e{t clerd bdd red[.: t I w. G.tuli'!! copy of th.r.ptstditld hyrl Ow/r.d Pk &rrd bir wnni!tu9ae (2t) drtr 66n rhc dlc orrhi. miliis dd ftro*.iy s6tutuir &.[ffindd MiLti., You mei subnjt th. infodtiortrvid# rp..llt.d b.ro?, wi6ir hr.dty{dc (2r) dq. nw rh. d.& ol f'.:,?j.<'.1- :-. qj --.'r., r(-..rl n,,. B -,i \il,,*t.{.j irt-.., r.-i i \.,r-\.* \<2:'q,'t;! i rzr f\.--- 1\ -, f.-.r< c.\ ti{ --! L' t'-.-'- ;! --.!&4-'r4r'; + <. -Eii;rMa,tbl als l,r.--- \'^l^r:^- ain-{ --rffiffi*.--r,-

47 Cassie Carter 188 E 93rd Street # New York, NY Lilia Albano, Rent Administrator DHCR Office of Rent Administration Gertz Plaza Union Hall Street Jamaica, NY February 17, 2008 Re: Docket #VK OD Dear Ms. Albano: Some, but not all, tenants at 188 E 93 rd Street received a Request for Additional Information/Evidence from you, dated 2/5/08. A copy of one of these forms is enclosed. Also enclosed are copies of the previously-submitted, signed Answer to Notice And/Or Application forms (form RTP-3A), along with brief statements from the tenants of apartments #1B, #2B, #2A, #1I, #3J, #1N, #1O, #2N, and #4O reaffirming their opposition to the landlord s application to reduce services and their support for the statement presented to DHCR by me, as Tenant Association representative. I noticed that on the original RTP-3A forms provided by DHCR, our building s address was pre-filled, leaving no space for tenants to specify their individual apartment numbers. I have written the apartment numbers on the RTP-3A forms for clarification. The package I submitted to DHCR included two sets consisting of signed Answer to Notice And/Or Application forms (form RTP-3A) from all of the above apartments, a 14-page written response dated December 1, 2007, and 112 pages of exhibits. The package was mailed on December 5, 2007, via certified mail, receipt # The package was delivered to DHCR at 12:15 pm on December 6, A printout of the USPS delivery confirmation is enclosed. It is unclear to us what additional information or evidence you need or why only some tenants received the Request for Additional Information/Evidence notice. I did not receive a copy of the notice. If, for some reason you did not receive our response package, please let me know immediately so that I may re-copy and re-assemble the materials. In the meantime, PDFs of all materials relating to docket #VK OD and related cases are available on the web at Please notify me immediately if you require any additional information or evidence. Thank you for your thoughtful attention to this case. Sincerely, Cassie Carter 188 E 93 rd Street Tenant Association Representative Enclosures Cc: Apartments #1B, #2B, #2A, #1I, #3J, #1N, #1O, #2N, #4O Jonathan Wallach, DHCR

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66 USPS - Track & Confirm 12/7/07 Fri 12/7, 10:02 PM Home Help Sign In Track & Confirm FAQs Label/Receipt Number: Status: Delivered Your item was delivered at 12:15 PM on December 6, 2007 in JAMAICA, NY Enter Label/Receipt Number. Track & Confirm by Get current event information or updates for your item sent to you or others by . Site Map Contact Us Forms Gov't Services Jobs Privacy Policy Terms of Use National & Premier Accounts Copyright USPS. All Rights Reserved. No FEAR Act EEO Data FOIA Page 1 of 1