By Charles Hack
As the list of Department of Housing Preservation and Development violations against the owners of 555 Ocean Avenue continue to mount, frustrated tenants have called in the big legal guns to help them force the landlord to fix problems with their building. Attorney Jane Landry-Reyes of South Brooklyn Legal Services was invited to the 555 Ocean Avenue Tenants Association on Jan. 11 to help residents learn their rights and assist them with possible legal action. One of the main concerns was a building elevator that tenants say has not moved from its resting place since last June, and hardly worked before that. And now a section of the staircase balustrade is missing in the communal staircase, residents say, leaving no barrier to prevent a child falling through. The landlord’s remedy to date is to wrap yellow caution tape around the remaining banister handrail, they said. “That the elevator is out for a year is a disgrace,” Landry-Reyes said. “The tenants should get organized and sue the landlord through housing court and get Housing Preservation and Development to bring proceedings.” The Buildings Department and Environmental Control Board entered a default judgment against the owners on Dec. 19 for failing to maintain service to the south elevator, fining the owner $2,500. The Buildings Department had issued violations for both building elevators during an inspection on Oct. 25, according to public records. The second elevator in the north of the building works, but received fines of $180 for maintenance problems including a worn car saddle, a broken capacity plate and broken vision panels. Records show that as of Jan. 17 the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development, which inspects apartments of tenants who receive Section 8 subsidies, now has 255 open violations against the property, which is owned by 555 Ocean Avenue Associates. Of those, 24 were defined as immediately hazardous and 175 as hazardous. That compares to 237 open violations in November. Violations include water leaks, uneven plaster and paint work, broken windowpanes, vermin infestations, broken locks, broken ceramic tiles and mildew. Some tenants also said they had been charged twice for their security deposits. According to the lawyer, the property had at one time been a project-based Section 8 subsidized building, meaning that applicants had to have an income below a percentage of the median income for the area to qualify for an apartment. Tenants would then pay approximately one third of their income on rent, depending on a formula. The building, which had been renovated in the mid- 1980s, also had a federally insured loan from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The landlord paid off the HUD-insured loan in May 2004, converting the building to a non-Section 8. Instead of receiving their Section 8 subsidies through the building, tenants received vouchers, which can be transferred to other buildings that accept them. Although all apartments are now “rent-stabilized,” meaning that rent increases are controlled by the rent stabilization board, paying off the HUD loan allowed the landlord to make a one-time adjustment to the rent. That meant that a hike in the rent, which for most tenants would be absorbed by the NYC Housing Authority subsidies. It also allowed the landlord to request an additional security deposit based on the new rents. To see whether or not tenants had been overcharged, Landry-Reyes said that tenants should dig out their original leases, receipts and any other proof of payment they had. Landry-Reyes also said that tenants were also facing eviction because some subsidies had been withdrawn after the landlord failed to remedy violations discovered during inspections. Landry-Reyes said that some landlords attempt to take the tenant to court to recover unpaid rent, rather than the New York City Housing Authority for withholding the subsidy portion of the rent. If the subsidies are unpaid the landlord might also try to refuse to accept the Section 8 vouchers, she said. “The landlord does not have the right to refuse a Section 8 voucher,” said Landry-Reyes. “You are never responsible for the portion of the rent that has been suspended,” Landry-Reyes, referring to cases where the subsidy was withdrawn because the landlord failed to remedy violations. Tenants seeking compensation for unresolved problems with their apartment could withhold rent, but Landry-Reyes said that it is generally safer to seek remedies through housing courts for failing their implied warranty of inhabitability of the premises and breach of contract. Nancy Ramos, district director at Councilmember Yvette Clarke’s office, who was present at the meeting, suggested sending a letter to tenants explaining what their options are before deciding on the best course of action. “We will send a letter to the tenants telling them what options are available and let them decide,” said Ramos. Tenants at the six-story, 84-unit building had already held a meeting on Oct. 22 and Nov. 17 hoping to solve some of the building’s problems. Tenants had approached Clarke’s office, which co-opted the housing advocacy group Erasmus Neighborhood Federation, Inc. to help the tenants organize. Catherine Heather Gordon, director of constituent services and community affairs at Clarke’s office said that the landlord has not returned repeated calls. Althea Richardson, a housing advocate from Erasmus Neighborhood Federation, 814 Rogers Ave., reported that inspections at the building carried out by members of her organization revealed problems including cockroaches, mold and mildew Older tenants who live on the fifth and sixth floor, said that with the elevator down they have climb to the roof to take the elevator in the northern side of the building. Several attempts to contact the owner of the apartments, Stanley Reifer, were unsuccessful. “I am going back to my office to see whether they are willing to represent you,” pledged Landry-Reyes at the end of the meeting.
