Click here for Minutes from meeting on February 7, 2002


Minutes from meeting on APRIL 3, 2002

CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Booth called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

HEARING CASE NO. 1479-02 :

ROBERT SABIA V. ALAN FISHMAN

Mr. Booth stated the protocol of the hearing to the assembly and then asked that all parties who were going to be giving testimony to stand and be sworn in.

Ms. Devitt then entered the exhibits into the record.

Mr. Sabia stated that on the evening of January 3, 2002, he tried to get into his apartment and broke his key in the lock. He went on to state that he could not dislodge the broken key and he telephoned the landlord but only heard an answering machine recording. He stated that he did not leave a message and looking back on that action felt he had erred. He said that he called a locksmith and had the locks replaced. He added that he paid for this himself. Mr. Sabia relayed that when he entered his unit he called the landlord and advised that he would give him one of the new keys. He said that the landlord telephoned him and refused to accept the new key because he wanted only one master key for all 4 units. He also said that the landlord told him he should have called him because he had his own locksmith that would have come over to do the work. He then stated that the landlord told him he would have his own locksmith come over and work on a new master key. Mr. Sabia said that the landlord informed him that he would be responsible for the bill.

Mr. Sabia advised the Commission that he never agreed to pay for the second locksmith’s services for the convenience of the landlord having a master key. He explained that when the locksmith called him to set a time for the new work to be done he told him that he would not be paying for it. He said that the locksmith called the landlord who advised him that he would pay for the service himself. He noted that the next morning the locksmith arrived and did the work and told him that he was doing similar work for another unit. Mr. Sabia said that he asked the locksmith if the landlord agreed to pay for all the work and the locksmith replied that he had.

Mr. Sabia remarked that a few weeks later the landlord called him and said that he would be sending him a bill for the locksmith’s services and Mr. Sabia told the landlord that he would not pay it. He added that they went back and forth on this issue and then finally agreed to compromise on paying half. He said that he had asked for a copy of the bill but to this date had not received one. He remarked that due to the fact that he did not receive the bill he did not pay it.

Mr. Sabia stated that all this led to three telephone calls from the landlord in one day and the last message left on his answering machine said that if he did not pay the bill his rent would be raised and he would be taken to small claims court. After his rent had been raised he said that the landlord explained that he did that because another tenant had moved in and they were paying more rent. Mr. Sabia said that he canvassed the other tenants and found that they were all paying the same rent and none of them was higher than his old rent amount. He stated that he felt his rent had been raised because he would not pay the locksmith.

Mr. Booth asked Mr. Fishman if the tenant’s testimony was factual and Mr. Fishman replied that the part about raising the rent was not. Mr. Fishman questioned why the issue of the lock was even mentioned due to the fact that this Hearing was being presented to the Fair Rent Commission. Mr. Booth advised Mr. Fishman that the Commission would be the judge of what was appropriate and under their jurisdiction.

Mr. Fishman informed the Commission that he had copies of comparable rents from newspaper ads. He asked the Commissioners if he could charge $1,400 - $1,500 for his rental units because even though he raised the rents he felt it was not enough. He advised the Members that he had called the tenant a couple of evenings ago and informed him that he had made a mistake in the new rent figure because it was too low.

Mr. Fishman said that he did not know that Ms. Medika was no longer living in the apartment. He went on to say that this apartment was an end unit and had the extra amenity of a bay window. He explained that he had kept the rental price low because he was no longer maintaining or supplying appliances. He added if the tenants wanted him to maintain them then their rent would be higher. He noted that he could not recall making any threat to raise the tenant’s rent if the locksmith’s fee was not paid. He pointed out that he utilized a master key system and preferred not to carry tenant keys around with him. He stated that he would have fixed the lock for nothing if the tenant had called him and explained the situation. He added that all he had to do was leave a message on his answering machine. Then Mr. Fishman retracted that he would have paid for the repair of the lock because the tenant had caused the damage to the lock. He said that he only wanted the tenant to pay half of the bill but he wouldn’t. He added that the other tenant with a similar situation had paid half.

Mr. Simms asked Mr. Sabia what time of day the incident occurred and Mr. Sabia replied that it was approximately 5:15 p.m. He added that the telephone number he had for the landlord was only for the answering machine. Mr. Simms asked Mr. Sabia if he had ever used the services of a locksmith before and Mr. Sabia replied that he had not. Mr. Sabia agreed with Mr. Simms that the price he was charged was exorbitant. Mr. Simms asked if the lock was faulty and Mr. Sabia replied that the key had broke inside it and when the locksmith arrived he tried to remove it but couldn’t. Mr. Simms asked Mr. Sabia if he felt he needed to call a locksmith right away and Mr. Sabia replied that he knew that the landlord would not call him back promptly. Mr. Sabia added that when the landlord’s locksmith subsequently came to do the work he told him that the landlord had been away for 2 weeks, which was during the time that this incident had occurred. Mr. Simms asked Mr. Sabia if he had a lease initially and Mr. Sabia replied that there was never any lease and the landlord saw no need for one.

Ms. Ebron remarked that the landlord and another tenant had each paid $50 to the locksmith. Mr. Fishman explained that another tenant had changed his locks and he had been unaware of it. He further explained that when the tenant gave him the new key he informed him that he would have to have it put on his master key. He added that this had happened at the same time as Mr. Sabia’s incident so the services were both on the same locksmith bill.

Mr. Bernard asked Mr. Sabia if all repairs were made promptly and Mr. Sabia replied that no repairs had been made to his unit. Mr. Fishman argued that point and then said that if there were ever any leaks he would call the condo association and they would handle it because leaks would be covered in the common charges. He stated that he did not know who went to the unit to make the inspection and reported that there were leaks. He went on to state that whenever there were problems he would have things repaired in bulk so as not have the repairmen come out for just one thing. Mr. Bernard asked Mr. Fishman about the condition of the smoke detectors in the unit as described in the inspection report and Mr. Fishman replied that he did not know there was a problem with them. Mr. Bernard asked Mr. Sabia if he had referred any problems to the landlord and Mr. Sabia replied that he had complained about the ceiling from the leaking of the washing machine. Mr. Sabia relayed that one day the landlord had been in the unit and his answer to repairing the ceiling was to take a screwdriver and make a hole in the damaged area so the water would have a place to drain. He said that once Mr. Fishman actually put his finger in the hole in the ceiling to make it bigger and then said he would not be repairing it. He noted that not only didn’t Mr. Fishman repair the leak but also then he had to pay a repairman to come in and fix it.

Mr. Bermudez asked if a copy of the inspection report had been sent to Mr. Fishman and Ms. Devitt replied that it had been sent on March 21, 2002. She added that due to the backlog of work in the office the report had been delayed in being sent out. Mr. Bermudez remarked that Mr. Fishman seemed to be reacting as if this was the first time he heard about the leak and Mr. Fishman interjected that he knew about the old leak and still did not believe that there was a current leak. Mr. Patterson stated that the area was dry but there was evidence that it had leaked at one point in time. Mr. Bermudez discussed the rent increase history of the unit and he asked Mr. Fishman why he waited so long to make the increases. Mr. Fishman replied that the rent increase had nothing to do with the lock and that he had been raising it a little each year. He reiterated that he would like the Commission’s permission to increase the rent to $1,400 - $1, 500 a month because the issue was what was fair rent for the units. Mr. Bermudez commented that the Commission would decide that.

Ms. Jean-Pierre commented that from 1995 – 2001 there had only been one $50 increase and then another increase was made in 2002. Mr. Fishman stated his philosophy in renting and managing the units was to try to keep the turnover low. He added that he tried to make an educated guess on what to charge for rent and then the figure would be kept low if he did not have to paint or supply/maintain the appliances. He said that now the market had changed and he was behind the times when he only raised the rent by $50.

Mr. Booth commented to Mr. Fishman that in his letter he indicated that the appliances had reached their life expectancy. He asked Mr. Fishman if he had supplied and maintained them up to some point and Mr. Fishman replied that he had. Mr. Booth remarked that basically he was cutting down the amount of service being given and that in itself was considered a rent increase without notice. Mr. Fishman commented that even with the supply/maintenance of the appliances being eliminated the rents were still substantially low.

Mr. Booth asked Mr. Sabia about the phone number he used to reach Mr. Fishman. Mr. Sabia replied that it was a number to an answering machine and he did not have the emergency number. Mr. Booth asked Mr. Sabia how long he had waited for a return call from Mr. Fishman before he called the locksmith and Mr. Sabia replied that he had not left a message. Mr. Booth remarked to Mr. Sabia that he had elected not to inform the landlord.

Mr. Bernard asked Mr. Fishman if he recently painted the unit and Mr. Fishman replied that he had painted the units for 8 years and then he decided that it would be the responsibility of the tenants to paint. Mr. Bernard informed him that he should have a consistent policy if he was going to supply the paint or not. He stated that usually most landlords would paint an apartment when someone moved out and Mr. Fishman replied that they would do so if they were getting $1,400 a month rent. Mr. Fishman reiterated that he tried to keep the rents low to reduce the turnover.

Mr. Booth asked Mr. Fishman why he did not issue leases and Mr. Fishman replied that he did not see any advantage to leases because the tenants controlled the apartments. He added that he felt leases were one-sided and he did not feel it would pay for him to have them. He noted that he had another business that he recently sold and now he would have time to concentrate on the apartments.

Mr. Simms asked Mr. Fishman if he had a separate account for security deposits and Mr. Fishman replied that all the money was kept in the same account. Mr. Simms remarked that he found it curious that when the rent was increased so was the security amount. Mr. Fishman remarked that was always his practice. Mr. Simms asked Mr. Fishman if he felt an end unit was more valuable and Mr. Fishman replied that he felt it was.

Mr. Booth asked Mr. Fishman if he would consider it his responsibility to paint the water stains from the leaking skylight and repair the hole. Mr. Fishman replied that all the tenants knew he did not make those types of repairs and he was adamant that the ceiling was stained not damaged. He added that there had been water damage with the washing machine and whenever that happened he would tell the tenants to punch a hole and let the water run straight down.

Mr. Booth asked Mr. Fishman to review the e-mail he had sent to Mr. Patterson on March 25^th. Mr. Fishman commented that he was a little upset when he wrote it. Mr. Booth informed Mr. Fishman that it was not the inspector’s responsibility to tell him what to do but it was his responsibility to keep the apartment up to code. Mr. Fishman commented that as he read the letter he was under the impression that the remarks were an observation. Mr. Booth advised him that it was an inspection report and it was up to him to meet the Code of the City.

Ms. Devitt advised that the inspection reports were a combination of code items and observations. She added that not all things would have to be repaired but they did go to the condition of the building or the desirability of the unit. She reviewed the report with Mr. Fishman and informed him which items were observations and which were action items. She advised that the landlord was always responsible for smoke detectors being in working order and if there was no lease for the apartment then the landlord was responsible to see that they were working all the time. She added that although it was not written in the statute she felt that the tenant had a responsibility to notify the landlord if they were not in working order. Mr. Bernard noted that the report indicated that there were 2 smoke detectors hanging and one dead one. Ms. Devitt remarked that certainly there would be a responsibility for the tenant to let the landlord know. Mr. Patterson informed the Commission that the high ceilings in the unit would make it impossible for the tenant to reach the smoke detectors.

Mr. Patterson commented on the landlord’s desire to have one master key for all units. He relayed that in his conversations with the landlord the issue of paying half the locksmith’s fee led him to believe that he would be paying 50% of that bill out of his own pocket. Mr. Patterson noted that in essence another tenant was paying the other 50% and he felt that the landlord should have only charged Mr. Sabia $25 for the bill. Mr. Fishman indicated that the other tenant had paid $50 through a deduction from the interest on his security deposit upon his leaving the unit. He stated that he only paid the interest out upon a tenant leaving.

Mr. Patterson asked Mr. Fishman if he ever replaced any hot water heaters and Mr. Sabia replied he had not. Mr. Patterson advised Mr. Fishman that he might want to have the tanks replaced. It was determined that the tenant experienced slow running hot water and the electric bill averaged to $425 a month for heat and hot water, paying $600 a month during the winter months and $200 a month the rest of the year.

Ms. Devitt made a point of information to Mr. Fishman. She advised him that regardless of how absurdly low the interest rate was State law required that the interest on security deposits be paid annually or deducted from the anniversary month’s rent payment. She added that it would be good practice to bring the tenants up to date now. She remarked that he could choose to get everyone on the same schedule but State law did require that it be done on the anniversary date and it should either be paid out or credited to rent.

Ms. Devitt remarked to Ms. Medika that she was knowledgeable of the apartment and Ms. Medika stated that she had lived there for 5 years. Ms. Devitt advised that a landlord had the right to be notified when the size of the number of tenants changed. She added that if another household member were to move in the landlord should be notified as well. She stated that legally the landlord needed to know who was living in the unit and if the occupancy situation should change.

Mr. Booth asked Ms. Devitt to speak to the outside lighting and Ms. Devitt replied that she felt it was a liability but it should be addressed to the Health Department. Mr. Fishman commented that the whole issue was the condo association’s problem. He stated that the contractor had wired the outside lights to each individual unit so each apartment had to switch their own outside lights on. Mr. Bermudez asked if the tenants paid for their own outside lighting and Mr. Patterson replied that it was their own porch light and there was no common lighting.

Mr. Bermudez asked Mr. Sabia if he was trying to make a point with Exhibit 5 and Mr. Sabia replied that he had asked the other tenants what they were paying and he found they were all paying the same rent. Mr. Fishman commented that Mr. Sabia did not know the middle apartments were different and he added that Mr. Sabia had an end unit. He said that the middle apartments did not have an outside window.

Mr. Booth asked Mr. Fishman if it were his intention to bring the building up to the Code of the City and Mr. Fishman replied that of course it was his intention and he added that he was unaware that they were not up to code.

Mr. Booth closed the hearing at 9:00 p.m. He stated to both Mr. Sabia and Mr. Fishman that the Commission would inform them of its decision. Ms. Medika asked if she could receive a copy of the minutes of the meeting and Ms. Devitt replied that she would forward her a copy. Ms. Devitt added that she would also be receiving a written decision from the Commission listing all the findings as well. Mr. Fishman declined to receive a copy of the minutes.

RECESS

The Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m.

REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF EACH OPEN CASE

Motion and Vote on Open Cases, as necessary

Case No. 1432-01 – Jhangiani

Case No. 1433-01 – Satram

Case No. 1434-01 – Orellana

Case No. 1435-01 – Orr

Case No. 1436-01 – Quadri

Case No. 1437-01 – Garcia

Case No. 1441-01– Trama

Case No. 1443-01 – Dobbs

Case No. 1444-01 – Hajela

Case No. 1445-01 - Perschy

Case No. 1454-01 – Olbrys

For all the above cases: No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1450-01 – Ortiz

Ms. Devitt stated that this case had gone to small claims court and she was a witness. She went on to state that the Magistrate had expressed concern over whether Mr. Ortiz was entitled to double damages because he had not provided his own new address to the landlord. She commented that assuming a judgment was awarded there was approximately $700 more that the Commission had ordered the tenant to receive. She explained that the question was whether to ask Corporation Counsel to enforce the balance of the decision if double damages were not awarded.

Mr. Booth asked if the Members felt a letter should be sent to the court regarding the reluctance of the tenant to reveal his new address to the landlord. It was determined that a letter should be sent because the Commission had considered the tenant’s fear of retaliation and the Magistrate had not. Ms. Devitt advised that the law stated that it had to come from the tenant in writing but she would send a letter that it was the decision of the Fair Rent Commission and they felt it was appropriate.

Case No. 1457-01 – Smith

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1459-01 – Wright

Ms. Devitt stated that they thought they had an agreement and a letter was sent to Attorney Heisler listing the terms of the agreement. She went on to state that the attorney wanted to change some of the terms but they never heard back from him. Mr. Patterson advised the Commission that he had spoken to the tenant’s daughter who informed him that the $50 increase would be effective May 1^st and not all the repairs had been completed.

** MR. BERMUDEZ SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

Case No. 1460-01 – Guadian

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1461-01 – Gonzalez

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1463-01 – Garcia

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1464-01 – Contreras

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1465-01 – Hernandez

Ms. Devitt stated that they had been advised Unit #2 was completed and that the tenants who were there moved upstairs to a larger unit.

** MR. SIMMS SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

Case No. 1466-01 – Cruz

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1467-01 – Vega

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1469-01 – Amman

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1470-02 – Fludd

No Action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1472-02 – Contreras

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1474-02 – de la Torre

** MR. BERNARD SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

Case No. 1475-02 – Reyes

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1476-02 – Arriaza

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1477-02 – Rodriguez

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1478-02 – Hernandez

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1479-02 – Sabia

This case was heard this evening.

Case No. 1480-02 – Garcia

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1481-02 – Lane

Mr. Patterson stated that the tenant had moved out and the final inspection had been done.

** MS. EBRON SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

Case No. 1482-02 – Navarro

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1483-02 – Arevalo

No action was taken at this time.

Case No. 1484-02 – Castro

No action was taken at this time.

PRESENTATION OF NEW CASES

Decision to Hear or Recommendations to Staff

Motion and Vote on each Case Presented

There were no new cases heard this evening.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2002

Page 2, 1^st Paragraph, 3^rd Line delete the word "health" and insert the word "out".

Page 6, Case No. 1469-01: Correct the spelling of the name "Amman" to read "Ammann".

Page 8, Case No. 1480-02, 2^nd Line: Correct the spelling of the name "Campuano" to read "Capuano".

Page 9, Case No. 1482-02, 1^st Line: Delete the case number "1481-02" and insert the case number "1483-02".

** MR. SIMMS SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

Mr. Booth expressed his appreciation to Mr. Bernard for chairing the last meeting. He informed the Members that there was a new Chairman of the Republican Town Committee, Art Scialabba.

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Ms. Devitt reviewed the written report with the Members. A discussion was held regarding the Freedom of Information Act. Ms. Devitt remarked that she felt the Mayor met with the FOI representative because the City would be liable if commissions and committees did not comply. Mr. Booth commented that he felt the Mayor should have invited the Commission Chairpersons to the meeting and Ms. Devitt replied that he had invited the Council Members.

Ms. Devitt stated that the next time they were asked for ideas for legislation she would like to propose an addition to the State Fair Rent enabling statutes to make it possible for landlords, in certain limited situations, to also file complaints with Fair Rent Commissions. She encouraged the Commissioners input. Mr. Booth stated that he felt this was a wonderful idea. He asked Ms. Devitt that she include that there be enforcement power with either side. He added that they needed some mechanism whereby the tenant had to follow their direction.

COMMISSIONERS’ POTPOURRI

Mr. Patterson stated that requests had come through via the website and Ms. Devitt stated that as soon as they received corrections they would post them. Ms. Devitt went on to state that one of the issues they needed to take up with data processing was to get the window in the website for the corrected minutes. Mr. Booth commented that if they got the website they could take the information from the brochure and enter it there and then insert the minutes.

NEW BUSINESS

There was no new business discussed this evening.

HEARING CASE DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION

FINDINGS

1. One of the witnesses, Deborah Medika, formerly lived in this unit for 5 years.
2. There has been lack of written communication to all the tenants from the landlord through his own admission.
3. The landlord did not provide leases stating the rights and responsibilities of the tenants.
4. The tenants were expected to do their own maintenance, repairs and purchasing of supplies.
5. The landlord did not provide paint to all the tenants on a uniform basis.
6. The landlord had sent a notice to all tenants that he would no longer be responsible for the existing appliances or replacement thereof and since it is the tenant’s responsibility it was in effect a rent increase.
7. The tenant had broken a key off in the door lock and without notification to the landlord had the locks replaced.
8. The tenant telephoned the landlord at approximately 5:00 p.m. the afternoon of the incident and decided not to leave a message on the answering machine although he had reached the correct number.
9. The tenant stated that he felt the landlord had not been responsive to prior concerns regarding the apartment in the past and the landlord did not respond in a timely manner when he made previous telephone calls.
10. The tenant had the perception that there was retaliation because of the issue with the key.
11. The landlord requested that he be allowed to raise the rent to $1,400-$1,500 to be competitive with fair market rent.
12. The landlord stated that it was his policy to keep rents below market and due to that he would not paint or make repairs.
13. The landlord agreed to have his apartments meet the Code of the City.
14. The electricity costs approximately $600 a month in winter and $200 a month the rest of the year, which averages $425 a month for heat and hot water.
15. The landlord stated that the hot water heaters and appliances would have to be replaced because they had reached their life expectancy.
16. The tenant testified that the hot water was slow to come on.
17. The landlord stated that he expected the tenants to put the filters in the mechanical system.
18. Both tenant and landlord admitted that there was water stains to the ceiling and the landlord had not painted which was why the stains looked the same as they did before the repair of the skylight.
19. The tenant claimed that the skylight leaked sometimes.
20. The tenant had not notified the landlord of the repair problems.
21. The landlord provided comparable rent prices to the Commission.
22. The tenant canvassed other tenants and found the rents to not be comparable.
23. Although the landlord presented comparable rents he does not paint, clean or repair the apartments. The landlord stated he would do those things if he received higher rents.
24. The landlord had asked the tenant for an increase in the security deposit when he increased the rent.
25. The landlord told the tenant to stick a screwdriver in the ceiling and make a hole for the water to drain from the leaking washing machine.
26. The Commission informed the landlord that any agreement regarding tenant responsibility should be in writing in order for it to be enforceable.
27. The Commission informed the tenant that any repair requests should be put in writing.
28. The landlord should supply directions as to requirements for maintenance by all tenants.
29. Unless and until the landlord had the tenant sign off and agree to receive ownership of the appliances in writing the landlord still had the responsibility to maintain them.

DECISION

1. The Commission found that the tenant was responsible for the cost of the master key.
2. Regardless of the merit of the letter that the landlord would not be responsible for the repairs to the damage in the apartment caused by an appliance they should not be the tenant’s responsibility and should be repaired by the landlord.
3. The increase as stated in the complaint is allowed but any additional increase is disallowed as it is the landlord’s policy to keep the rent low by not painting, maintaining or repairing the apartment.
4. The landlord should immediately make all smoke detectors operable.
5. The landlord should paint and repair all water damage to the ceiling in the dining room, living room and in bedroom #1 the ceiling and entire room should be painted.
6. All rooms that have water damage should be repainted.
7. The landlord should address the insulation problem as stated in the inspection report of the attic.
8. The landlord should replace the filters for the furnace and mention that the tenant should do this in the future. The landlord should provide written instructions.
9. The work is to be completed in 30 days.

MOTION TO ADJOURN

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Ann Marie DeLuca

Telesco Secretarial Services

Back to Previous Page	Back to Home Page