ready. Having been properly advertised in accordance with the sunshine laws of the state of New Jersey, today 5, 2025, the meeting of the Jersey City Rent Leveling Board is called to order
at 6 10 p.m. Can I please have a roll call? All right, we're going to have a roll call. Uh, Alexander Hamilton, present.
Dan Hill, present. James Eco, present. Joe M. Williams, present. Mark Isachov, Michael T. Brown, Sullivan C. Johnson, we have five present. So, we do have
qual. Thank you. Thank you. There being a quorum, the board will meeting will proceed as such. Thank you for attending our meeting tonight. Everyone will have an opportunity to speak. Please speak only when recognized
by the chair to speak. Address the board and not your adversary. Keep your presentation to the issues in question. The board will listen to all sides of your complaint or application and come to a decision. All parties will receive
the written decision within 3 weeks. You will then have 45 days to appeal the decision to the superior court. So, if you do not like our decision tonight, please be civil and appeal it when you receive it in writing. I count on your
cooperation tonight. Thank you. One thing I'd like to add, when you come up to address the board, you will be given three minutes to speak on both sides, tenants and attorneys and
landlords. Okay. First case tonight is H 2024 00005 hardship application for 2011 St. Paul's Avenue. Good evening. William Goldberg for 2011
St. Paul. You have all the information before you thing about uh thing about the rent board is that they have records of all submissions of proper rents. So everything is
there. Likewise with regard to expenses, there are taxes. There are homeowners association dues and fees. There are insurance costs. These are all
listed. There's no contestation about any of the expenses. So what you have in this situation is a 40-year impact of rent control on one landlord who has done nothing over the
course of the last 40 years to seek well I shouldn't say done nothing to seek who has not appeared before this board to obtain a hardship or anything else. And what's happened is this. The rents go up
this way. The expenses go up this way. That's the way it happens. All you got to do, I sent you three documents in October and April and May. You have the the list of expenses. If you add them up in St.
Euron in in 10on, you have a $43,000 yearly deficit. Oddly enough, if you add them up in 2011 St. Paul's, you also have a $43,000 deficit. There's nothing you can
do about that deficit. The numbers are the numbers. I didn't make them up. Whatever you got from Mr. Bullworth has nothing to do with your obligation at a very minimum to make
sure that the landlord is not taking losses every month because if he does take losses primmaaccia without question that is confiscatory and I don't want to even
cite case after case after case would say that rent boards cannot allow a landlord's rights to receive income. He can he's not subject to confiscation and not being able to break even is a
fundamentally conf confiscation and a violation of every rule on fair return. So that being said, the only thing you can do is
then turn to the issue of fair return. I'm assuming because the numbers are the numbers that this board will say this landlord should not have to proceed every single month to continue to take losses in a building that he has
operated for the last 46 years without seeking any exceptional increases from this board. I can't tell you how many tax lean cases I've handled, but probably 50 50 tax leans cases that I had to
resolve. And why? Because the landlord, his name was Mort Ginsburg, he passed away in in 2020 because he was taking losses every month and he couldn't pay his taxes. So whether it was 50 or 100 cases, we'd pay them when
we sold some some some units. But basically, he was taking losses every month for the last 15 or 20 years. The greatest blessing in the world that he never sought to do anything about raising
increases beyond what the tenants were paying for all of those years. It's a miracle. It's a mystery. But he did it. So what is what am I doing here? If the numbers are the numbers on the issue of confiscation, I'm here to talk about
fair return. One minute, counselor. And where does fair return start? Fair return starts at the point where he breaks even. At the point where you give him his $86,000 for these two units, 43 and 43. So whether it's I can cite you case
after case after case but you know every landlord's entitled to a fair return. A fair return by the way is not the consumer price index in real estate investment. Everyone here knows that fair
return has to be based on the possibility of loss. So those numbers are up. I have suggested in my papers that a fair return on this building is 8% 8% over the over the 300 whatever it
is $327,000. That should be his gross income for the two for the two buildings. So it should be 8% over that number. Anything else would be unfair. Wouldn't be a fair return.
Thank you. Thank you, counselor. Sure. Thank you. Anyone from the tennis side like to speak? This is for the record would be St. Paul and Hiron. So the council is
representing both. Correct. Thank you. Yes, of course. Stephen Lipsky, LII Psi. residing at 2011 St. Paul's Avenue, apartment 17N. Proceeding is the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth. I do. So, um, couple of things. First, um, let me say that I reviewed all the documents for 10on and for 2011. Um, and
to Mr. Goldberg's point um in the transcripts from the November meeting on page 54 I mentioned then and I'll repeat now that under the rent control laws uh section 260-10G that I had asked that um or I
had mentioned that none of the checks that are required under that ordinance was submitted. So in the same way that he's claiming Mr. Goldberg that primmaasi it shouldn't be confiscatory for him in the same way it should be for
the tenants meaning is that for the taxes he supplied the tax record fair enough his taxes or his client's taxes for 22 23 what we didn't see what and was the cancel checks and why do I say that because um the compilation sheet we
got was a projection for 2024 it wasn't the uh actual from uh 2023. And then number two is the management company that manages the building also receives a payment uh for
consulting or managing uh the 2011 conversion. And I could show you from the documents um that were supplied the 330 some odd pages. uh one uh the payment for the tenant uh registry came
out of Rockford's uh checking account uh rather than a differentiation. So why do I say this is I made the case back in November that I understood that between the taxes and the uh maintenance fees that there was about a
$69,000 differential. Um the record that I looked at that was supplied from Mr. Bullworth and I find to be fair, but Mr. Bullworth just confirmed me it was supplied by the attorney that it shows
the uh differential cost the operating loss at about 65,000 with the unit loss of about 5,000. So what that will translate into and I just spoke to Miss Bowworth and I looked at the uh table
that was supplied for both 10 and 20 uh1 102201 would be about a 20050 per unit increase and 10 you're on about a 270 and change 271 275 the only question I have on that is is is that if
granted that that is the hardship and that's the differentiation loss How is it that it's determined that each unit would get that rather than if it's a studio or one bedroom or um a person you know has a a certain hardship. So
other than that as Mr. Ginsburg sorry Ginsburg Mr. Goldberg had said in the last meeting and I'll wrap up by saying I don't think there's bad people or good people. I think the numbers are what the numbers are and without having seen that documentation
um I think there's at least a question mark in that but I think the numbers that uh were presented in the packages to both 10 you're on and 2011 are not grossly uh unfair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Eric, do you do you want to
mention that it's 250 and 270 per unit? Just to answer the question, it's for 2011 it's 250.12 per unit and for tenor it's
27125 per unit. That is so it's not just one uh for the whole you know for the whole apartment each apartment receiving that. No you re received that increase per unit. Can I speak for a second on this issue? That is um one second that is uh so yes
that is um for each unit uh that they are identical in room size square footage uh the square footage and the rooms room numbers I should say by room number uh we're not supplied in this application so going forward we just
used it per unit but yeah I mean if there is a difference in those units um then yeah we can break it down even further by room or by square footage That's cool. That's cool. But this Yes.
So the 250 um and the the 271 that would be applied per per unit in each application each month. Moving forward. Moving forward. Correct. Okay. Because that'll explain why there's different
increases for each unit. There's probably more, you know, some might be two bedrooms or three bedrooms and Sure. I I just give me a minute. rent will be higher. Uh so yeah, uh Eric Bullwith, assistant director for division of housing
preservation. I was the hearing officer. Of course. You swear that proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing. I do. I swear that's bi. Um okay.
So based on uh the calculation that I provided um your first column uh you all have that in front of you uh for for the calculations um that is what the bureau is recommending uh as far as an increase
and that's what it looks like for the uh recorded rents that were on file uh given those rent roles. So you see there's a 2024 and then there's the one uh where there was a 2023, right? So
it's the what you really want because we're we're past 24 now. Um you're looking at that increase which is two um 250 sorry for 2011 St. poll it's $25012 and then for 10 Huron
uh it is $27125. That's what that would have looked like last year if we if it was granted. So just keep that in mind that this is just giving you an idea of what it would have looked like last year. I see. All right. Um there is also a third
column that I added in there where I did a uh base rent calculation for the property. That's uh that's if the landlord did their due diligence and they applied a CPI increase uh over the years. That's what the base rent would
look like. Okay? Not not the actual rent for the tenant because the actual rent is what the tenant is paying. Okay? The base rent is the rent of the unit. And the base rent isn't always the actual rent because there's certain cases I
keep going back to a property owner where I asked him, "Well, why is your base rent so high, like thousand some odd dollars and the rent is 600?" and he said, "Well, this is a handicapped individual who who utilizes a wheelchair
and that's why I and they're on the first floor and that's why their rent is lower, but he understood that and so that when that tenant moves out, they can that base rent can be applied to a new tenant." Okay. So, when I reviewed the rent roles for both of these
properties, um I I saw that there weren't any CPI increases uh over over the years. Um, and so that is what it would have looked like. And again with the rent increases, not not much of a difference
in in a lot of cases in those units. Um, and then of course, you know, that that second column, this is uh what was uh recommended by the uh applicant or the property owner as far as a rent increase. Now, with my increases, we're looking a
little bit over 5% profit annually. Um, in the case of um 2011 St. Paul, 16% annual profit point something. Um
again with the uh uh with 10 Huron we're looking just a little bit underneath there. So like you know 11 12% increase. Uh every property owner
okay you talk to a real estate agent um you know they'll say you want 10 20% annual profit. 5 to 10 is good enough. you know that's the bare minimum. Okay. And you have you have to understand that they've also provided uh expenses uh
proof of expenses that was also in this calculation and it was considered. Um so yeah we you know the bureau's recommendation is on the low end but it's fair as per the ordinance um which is you know fair return equity in the
property. it was not um it was not modified for inflation. Uh because I think again that kind of goes back to uh well then why can't I apply appraise value? Uh why why can't I apply
appraise value in the fair return? Well, because appraise value isn't written into the ordinance, right? Okay. Um uh do you have any other questions? Um Mr. Bore Sullivan Johnson. Uh, one
question. Mr. Lipsky had mentioned something about cancelled checks and I understand that you said that the documentation or the expenses have been documented. Do we does your bureau typically look for cancel checks or were
you comfortable with the documentation that was supplied? So, yeah, in my recommendations there were uh some proofs that were admitted and then there were some proofs that were omitted. Uh in the case of uh both of these
applications, there were uh certain the ordinance asked for uh proof of expenses and proof of payment of those expenses. Um so if you have an invoice or you have a bill, it's got to be backed up by a proof of payment. That
could be a cancelled check, that could be a bank statement, that could be a credit card statement. uh you know we tell these property owners I mean obviously they don't everything is operable but we we'll redact it but I I tell them you you if you're not comfortable with providing me with a
whole bank statement you could redact I don't need to see everything I just need to see that one line oh on this day and time this money went here to pay for this thing uh and in my recommendation there were uh four articles that either did not have backing invoices or did not
have uh uh backing proof payment. So those were all omitted. Thank you. Okay. Excuse me, assistant director. I do have a question for you. Sorry. Is it This is the one where you said
that you accepted the affidavit as proof of expenses, right? Yes. I'm sorry. Oh, yes. Okay. Can you explain how the affidavit shows that they that the affidavit satisfies this requirement set
forth in 260 10H please? Uh yes. So 260 what have Sorry. If you could just bear with me for one moment. I just to add clarity to my question. I just want to specify for the record why we're accepting something
other than what the ordinance requires. Okay. So that's that's not where the uh so it the requirement is also in 26010G2 canceled checks or other proof
of payment for all expenses claimed in the hardship application. Correct. Mhm. And three. And three. Done. Um. Okay. So 260-10 which is uh under the notice
procedure um it states notice procedure prior to application under this section to the board the landlord shall serve upon each tenant by registered or certified male or personal service a notice of said application setting forth the basis for said application the
amount uh of rental increases applied for for with respect to the tenant and the calculations involved A sample copy of such notice shall be filed with the application of the landlord to the board together with an affidavit or certification of service or notice
application upon tenant. No hearing shall uh commence upon six. So that's really for the noticing aspect of it. But um yes, they we do have the landlord also submit an uh an affidavit
uh stating that the documents uh the proofs that they provided are you know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Uh but again getting back to the proofs uh yeah sure we have the
affidavit there but in the case of like proof of payments I I don't know what these proof of payments were for. they're just, you know, you just imagine you have a check made out to so and so LLC or whatever company uh for an amount
of money um but you're not sure other than like a compilation statement uh that is also required by the ordinance um that substantiates that okay this is what we paid for and this was a service that benefited this block and lot this
property and these tenants in the the building. Um, I don't know if I answered the affidavit question. No, but I'm not sure you did either. Sure. Go ahead. Just give it to me one more time. What proof you looked at to say, "Yeah, these
numbers are real." Mr. Goldberg said the numbers are the numbers, but both of you have different numbers. Yes. I just want to make sure that there's in the record the board can point to this is the proof for the numbers that we're choosing.
Yes. So, the the proofs that were omitted were bank charges totaling $175 uh those are in the exhibits. Uh miscellaneous miscellaneous expenses totaling
$11.72, which I believe was in the compilation statement, but there wasn't anything. There wasn't an invoice or receipt. I I don't know what that $11.72 paid for. uh license and permitting totaling
$220.50. Again, there weren't any proofs there for that. Uh and electricity to vacant units totaling $2521. Um, I mean, I've I I don't know what I've included all the PSCG
uh proofs, so I don't know exactly where where that like $2521 came about. And that was that was just for 10 Huron. Um, let me just see. Okay. And
then sorry that was also duplicated in uh 2011 St. Paul. Um when these applications were resubmitted uh I found two uh after a second review of both applications that they had the
same uh proofs and invoices for each application. So you you had proofs that only pertained to 10 heruron in an application for 2011 St. Paul. So then I had to go back and I had to separate
what applied to the one property 2011 St. Paul and the other property 10 Huron. And then yeah, these four which are are listed in both properties. I I couldn't determine again what properties they
pertained to. Um I I couldn't uh I I did not know what they were for. So I I omitted them. They didn't have either again a proof of payment or a proof of the expense. I have documentation from the packet
that was sent. So the well again just uh yeah I'm so I just so that everybody understands too um yes there is the application that uh is provided to you by a property owner. Okay. Um that may
differ greatly from what was submitted to us. Um and uh their numbers will are are definitely definitely going to you could see in my calculation that they were totally different. Um so there will be some difference in between what
you're seeing um whether it was provided to you or if you went on the citizen self-service portal and you reviewed that application. um you're going to see the applicant's numbers and what the property owner is requesting and what the property owner thinks is a fair
increase. Um now if you are a tenant, you should have been provided this application as per the ordinance. Um and and the proofs upon a request too. I mean that's all in the ordinance, right?
So uh do you have any other questions? So just a quick question. So if it if they don't provide proof, it's not in your calculation. Correct. Yeah. So yeah, and that gets back to um 260-10H
uh where it says claimed expenses that are not supported by bills or invoices and cancel checks, money orders, or appropriate proof of payment shall not be allowed. Perfect. Thank you. [Music] Uh just seeing if there was anything.
Okay. Yes, no problem. Sorry, but that Oh, sorry. That goes to what you said about certain things were submitted but they were not. Yeah. And that that often times happens. Um, you know, um, I don't fault the property owner, um, because,
uh, the majority of these I either get from a third party, whether the property manager or, uh, they are an associate, um, you know, an attorney. I haven't gotten one from an attorney yet, just but you know, um, you know, again, it's it's all
about, I guess, reviewing the documentation and comparing it to what was provided the bureau and what you actually have on file. Um, but this is again everything that we received through the Tyler portal, the citizen
self-service portal. Um, and that's that's what I was able to work off of. Nice. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Bles. Can I have one more question? Yeah. Uh, just a bit of housekeeping, I would say. Sure. Uh, so in our package, we had an hearing
officer's recommendation as of February 25th, 2005. Okay. Yes. Okay. And it's recommending a provisional approval. Has anything been done in the the last three months as it relates to
this? Uh so the reason for a provisional approval was um every property um should fall into substantial compliance uh to be um again approved for uh application review. All right. That substantial
compliance means that um really it's it's our division, but it it states uh any you know city division uh that does an uh an inspection um you know it has to be in substantial compliance. There can't be any open violations. The last
inspection um that we did of those properties was in September of last year. Um there were violations that were found. There were uh two uh vacant units uh that we were unable to get access to
uh and that the owner was stating that uh they were looking to sell anyway because bear in mind these are condo units. Um I believe there was one unit uh in the inspection report to where we had to revisit. Anyway, to date, we have not received any uh scheduling to to uh
confirm or any photographic evidence that these violations are abated. Uh so they still do exist. So in the summary, yes, provisionally, if if you decide to grant, I would recommend that you uh
provisionally grant it for 6 months uh to allow this property owner um to abate these violations uh and bring it uh into compliance. And that would be roughly 6 months starting today, correct? Yes.
Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Um that's just a recommendation. Yeah, that's for me. All right. Thank you. Sure. Okay. Mr. Le, you want to speak? Go ahead. So, once again, I just want to say I thank Mr. Bullwart's numbers. I'm sorry,
Steve. I'm still swear before God that I love this country and serve this city. Um, so we in talking with many of the neighbors, there's no doubt that, you know, there there has to be a fair return. We understand the law. My uh
contention is and I always want to put on the record in case any of the tenants wish to seek the uh to red address this in the courts after which is that in 26010 G2 and 3 those checks never either the checks or an affidavit were never
supplied to the tenants. So there was no way of saying this. And why do I say that is because in the last packet with Mr. Bowit's recommendation on page 227 exhibit 3 I have here there's a bank statement from Rockford management but
it's paying the fees for the 2011 conversion so there's a confluence of funds somewhere and I just want to put that on record and here's the other thing I want to say and so I I'm saying is in two in 26010 G2 and three that
hasn't been met but that's I think it's you know I think that the due diligence is is is is fair. But I think just to keep it with honest and transparent that and then one other thing is is that on page 55 of the transcript it said and I
said so what Mr. Kilby supplied to the residents and the board was a compilation sheet. I have it here and I was going to submit it as an article if needed to be and it's a projected income for 2024 from January to June and then
there's the projection from July to December meaning is is that they didn't make the case in compilation that compilation sheet should have been substantially filled out for 2023 stating the differences between what the
cost were and what the expense or the income that they were taking to show that hardship. ship and that's all. So I have this from the packet. Um I just want to put that on record so you can take that into consideration. Thank you. All right. Thank
you. All right. Motion to close a public portion. I uh make a point. Step up. Counselor. The documents that have been submitted to this board are very, very clear,
incontestable. Landlord's losses are $86,000 a year, one in one or two. You have the taxes, you have the monthly maintenance costs, you have the insurance, you have all the documents that show you all you
do is look at them. $86,000 of losses. Mr. Bulver has concluded that with the fair return and utilizing the fair return and
the losses, he finds a total of everything of around $60,000. If you give him a if you give the landlord a 6% increase over his over his current rent with the
86,000 would come to about 327 time 6%. That's what he would at a minimum be entitled to. He's not looking for anything that hasn't been proven that hasn't been submitted to you. I've gotten nothing back that would dispute the $86,000. All you got to do is look
at the numbers. Just look at them. Look at the it's 86,000 to for him to break even. That's what it is. And then if you decide to give him a fair return, it should be based on his break even
point. That's what should happen here. Wait, I have a question. Can you confirm 100% you submitted all invoices and all proofs of payments? Yes. every you you have everything and I got I have received nothing. I mean I know that I am
required to submit documents to this board 10 days before the hearing but I have never received any document from any tenant or anything other than what I got from Mr. Bullworth and he says your losses are around
$60,000. We take issue with that. I don't think it's 60. I am certain with a degree of certainty that if you look at the documents that have been submitted the simple documents the taxes you don't have to you don't have
to get certifications look at the taxes look at the monthly maintenance costs all you got to do is look at them and look at the insurance and look at the look at the actual cost for uh the additional cost for the maintenance not the cost of payments for
maintenance. But in any event, those documents are clear and I as I would say that they are uncontested. And if you look at those documents, you won't come out with a figure that Mr. Bullworth gave you, which is $60,000, which is what the 250 and the
270 are based on, but you'll do it based on an $86,000 figure. No question about that at all. And then there's the fair return. You've got to make a decision about
whether, and this will be a decision you'll have to make in every case that appears before you for as long as you're sitting here. Is the CPI a fair return for an investment? You got to decide that. Yeah, but we're not here to decide that.
Oh, yes, you are. Sir, sir, sir, you're here to determine fair return. If you decide that the landlord has a right to break even, okay, he has a right to break even. If he pays out $10,
he's entitled to get $10 back. If you decide that, you then have the next question. What is a fair return? He can't wind up with nothing. He can't wind up with on a break even point. That's not a fair return. It has to be
something more than the break even point. That's why you have to decide fair return. The Supreme Court says over and over and over again that the job your job is to determine what is a fair return under all the circumstances. And
all I have said is that given the fact that we're talking about investment, something other than something other than the formula which is utilized uh on a yearly basis is
appropriate. Something more than that. That's all I'm saying. Thank you, councelor. Thank you. Actually, actually, can I ask one question, Mr. Okay, it's going to be very brief. Just have a question. Mr. over. Can you make sure your microphone is on, please? It's going to be very brief. Set aside
the numbers. Yeah. What is your position regarding the code compliance? Regarding code compliance, right? Right. Because the last time an inspector was out there was February 25th and things didn't appear to be up
to code. Yeah. My rec my understanding was that as of the date of this decision as of the date of the decision we have six months to make certain that there is no violation in any in any apartment. That's what I've been told
from the very beginning by that's what I've been told when council and I were I won't get into it but there were statements made to me that with six months as of the date of the decision I will just we're on definitional issues
here so I'll just point us back to the ordinance that substantial compliance is no major violations affecting the health safety of the occupants so I do think that there can be some violations ations while you're still finding substantial compliance. So that's a decision that
you need to make. As to fair return, I disagree with what Mr. Goldberg is saying is it's not your decision. It's not your job to define what a fair return is. You're bound by the terms of the ordinance. Want me to read from the Supreme Court, sir? Would you like me to
do that? I because when you say excuse me when you say look at the ordinance you're there's a statement there from the Supreme Court which says that's not what you do. You make a decision. The ordinance doesn't
make a decision on what fair return is. How can the ordinance look at the totality of the circumstances for a particular landlord and determine what a fair rate of return is? You make the decision based on all the facts as you see them. I don't want to get get into
what the Supreme But that's what the Supreme Court says. The rent board makes a determination as to what fair return is. So counselor, let me just say this. Once we make our decision, you have 45 days of course. So let's just whatever
decision we make tonight, you get 45 days to appeal it. I will say I do agree with what Mr. Goldberg is saying is that it's not a break even ordinance. Right? If you can't pay your bills and your bills are substantiated, then you're entitled to a hardship increase. And the
hardship increase isn't just to zero, right? It's to the 2.5% plus the passbook rate of return in the city. That's where those numbers are coming from. And that's it. If then that's it. That makes sense.
If it's to me, it's got to be something more than simply the CPI. If you have an investor who's putting his money, that's all I'm saying. It's the It's the ordinance. I I I my job is to advise the board. I advise you to look at the ordinance.
Thank you. Motion to close the public portion of this meeting. One last thing. So with regard to the documentation, I just want to say in the November meeting, hold on. We we do have a motion on the floor. So uh once that
motion has been made, do we have a second? Okay. One minute. Okay. Motion has been made and clo and second to close the public speaking. Motion is closed. All right. Second. We can't We can't hear you. I'm sorry.
All right, Steam, you want to go ahead? Okay. If the hearing uh both parties, we'd like to make a motion to accept the hearing offic's recommendation uh for both 2011 St. Paul and
Tanyon. and I can uh read the relevant parts of the hearing offic's recommendation for each. For 2011 St. Paul, the bureau recommends that the board provisionally grants the
recommended increases to 50.12 per unit monthly for 6 months allowing the landlord to complete the substantial compliance requirements of the ordinance. If after 6 months from the board's provisional
approval, the property is confirmed to be in substantial compliance, then the board can fully approve the recommended hardship increases for the application. If the property is not in substantial compliance within six months from the
board's provisional approval, then the board should deny the recommended hardship increases and the landlord will revert to the effective units rents back to prior application of the
hardship increases. reimbursing the tenants the differences paid over the sixmonth provisional period and that we agreed the provisional period would start after
this this hearing. Uh oh, excuse me. Before there's a second on that, can we just have a discussion about what evidence you're relying on to choose Mr. Bowwith's recommendation over Mr. Goldberg's numbers?
So that would be and is there any thought on not having a flat 250 per unit and a portioning it based on something like rooms or square footage which could be a more equitable option.
We did discuss that earlier. How would we implement that based on we don't have the measurements of the apartments? If I recall, in the most recent filing that the attorney submitted, there was a list
of the units and the square footage. You could surmise the total increase and then divide that by as many square feet as the owner owns. And then that will give you a rate of the fair return per square foot. And then you apply that
rate by each square footage of the unit. Definitely a bit of arithmetic, but I think it's probably more fair than a flat rate. Do we have to repent this? Yeah, I don't know. That's what I'm trying to ask.
In this case, uh to make a recalculation, do we have to remand this back to the bureau? because we can't make the calculation right now. Right. Sorry. Um, hearing officer Eric
Bullworth again. Uh, yes. So, if that were the case that you were going to remand it back, that would give us the chance to confirm those square footage numbers that were supplied to us after the application was submitted. I think and then we could base the
calculation off of square footage as opposed to just per unit across the board. I thought we can't approve the total and it's divided amongst the square footage. No, that would be the hearing office.
They they have the rent. I know. Then they go back and do the calculation. You could do that now, but we we haven't confirmed the square footage or even if the the units are different in room numbers. Uh that's another way to also do the calculation. We could break you
could if they're all equally um same number of rooms, same square footage, then it would be per unit. As per the submission of the application, initially there wasn't any room numbers uh on rent rolls there. There were, but
that again that was their calculation wasn't based off of uh rooms or square footage. Uh after the fact they supplied the square footage, but if you want us to revisit that, recalculated, we have to go back, reinspect, we have to
reinspect anyway to make sure that these violations are abated. But if you want us to um we can confirm the square footage or the the room count and then we could we could calculate the fair return based off of that per unit.
I know we got to do it twice. So do we withdraw the previous motion? Well, I don't think it even passed, right? No second it. Yeah. So you'd have to make another motion. You could defeat the motion as to
Commissioner Iskoff. Is that Joe Williams? Joe M. Mr. Williams. Um I think that you could approve an increased amount and then say this is how it will be decided, right? And then that math could happen. Um that would be
an option, but you would have to choose what amount the increase is going to be. So it's 10 units times the 251. And that's 2500 a month. I can't hear you. If it's 250 a unit, there's 10 units. It's $2,500. I'm
giving round numbers. That's $2,500 a month. And then they go back and calculate it per unit. I mean, you guys don't dis agree. I mean, we don't have to like why come back to the same. That's the basic math. You're just trying to get the math. Yeah. Well, I'm trying to keep it moving without having them to come
back. I mean, you don't have to agree with me. No, no, just whatever you guys want to do. Whatever you guys want to do. You want to go with whatever now? And I cannot hear you. Oh, I think we should
Yeah, I think we should go with the total amount and then have them come back with the square footage. Is your microphone on? Go with the total amount and then come back with the square footage numbers. So, approve the total like you said earlier, right? and then get the
actual numbers on the square footage of each unit so we can understand what the increase is going to be on each unit. Do you envision that coming back before you again? Because I think if you provisionally approve it, it's out of your hands for 6 months.
I don't think it needs to come back to us as long as those numbers are worked out. We're we're we're agreeing on the total like you said, right? Exactly. Exactly. I agree with that. Yeah. Yeah, that's true. Okay. So, we're going to keep the same motion for the record. Did you answer I'm
sorry. What's your last name? My name is Jonathan Rexstead. Call Jonathan's question that he asked you and I think it's extremely important for the record obviously from my we'll get there. Why we're making our decision we will get there. We will have a seat
and we'll get to the question. We we are figuring out some other things. No, I understand if we were going to move forward or send it back. So we it's very important and why we're making a decision. We will get to that. All right. If so, if we do want to make a motion, I
think we're clear on what the annual increase should be. We just need to it needs to be worked out now uh as an allocation by square footage instead of per unit. Right. So motion to accept. Yeah, I think
that's a modification of the assistant director's recommendation. Right. Right. Okay. All right. I I think we can say that we make a motion to accept the
hearing offic's recommendation with a modification as to the calculation uh for the allocation of the rental
increase and I can basically read the provisional uh hearing offic's recommendation, but just provide the total dollar amount. All right. So, we have a motion to
modify the rent leveling board's determination. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. So, we're going to vote on this. So, in the case of Huron, the vote is to modify the rent leveling bureau's decision. Alexander
Hamilton. Yes. Name. Yes. Damon Hill. Yes. James Eco. Yes. Joe Williams. Yes. Mark Issachov. Michael Brown. Sullivan Johnson. Yes. Okay. The
motion passes 5 to zero. Motion has been accepted to modify. Thank you. Thank you. And we're going to stay here because it's the same case. Okay. So, same thing. Uh in the case of Thank you. 2011 St. Paul's Avenue again, the rent
leveling board is uh voting to modify the bureau, right? Thank you, sir. So, we ask for a motion. Thank you. We're asking for a motion uh for the bureau motion of modification of the rent living bureau's determination for 2011 St. Paul's. Uh do
we have a motion? Motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Now, we're going to vote on the motion uh to modify the rent leveling bureau's determination for 2011 St. Paul's. Alexander Hamilton, yes. Dan Hill, yes. James Eco, yes. Joe
Williams, yes. And Sullivan Johnson, yes. The motion and the vote rather uh to modify the rent level board, the renting leveling bureaus, forgive me, determination for 2011 St. Paul's passes 5 to zero.
Thank you. Correct. And these motions, this motion modified was only because the facts were proof the facts and the proofs of 2011 St. Paul's Avenue were discussed during the
hearing for Tinhuron. Thank you, council. All right, next case. Next case. 110 Warner. 110 Warner. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Jay Reese. I'm the
property manager on behalf of 110 Warner. Have a seat right there. Uh, sorry folks. If you could just remain quiet. If you have any conversations, please take it out into the hallway. Thank you. Sorry
commissioners choose to swear though this way J Reese J A Y J A Y last name R E I S Simony forgiveness. Yes. Okay, proceed. Okay. Um, good evening.
So, the reason for me appealing this determination was first of all, there was a confusion with the date that why that's why I did not appear and um a decision was made without me. Uh, when the when the the the secretary here
asked what date works, I I replied back with a date. She asked between two dates. I confirmed which one works. Um, I did reply all as you requested. I did not get any reply all from the tenant and neither did I hear anything again from anyone with any time or any confirmation. So that's why I was kind
of a no-show. And that explains that. And when I got that a few months later, I was surprised why there was a determination hearing between the tenant and um the officer without me. So I was requested for an appeal. Um and the
reason why uh I should have been there is because I see the determination I think it was a determination of three and a half% for like a period of two years or something based on extermination wasn't provided. Um and I
see that discussion he like he looked for proof and there was proof in the original case where I gave of the exterminator that was there. There was extermination. And I submitted invoices more than once. But most important, the exterminator provided um in the invoice
notes and photos of the tenants's apartment that he she can call to, you know, she he can keep on coming. But he submitted photos of what it looks like. He moved away the stove and uh it looks basically like another pantry in there in behind the stove. And I've been in that apartment personally quite a few
times, so I can attest that it's not the most um it's not very clean. So, you're going to get you're going to get roaches. You're going to get bugs. Uh he did not uh take this into consider. He didn't notice when they had this call without me. They did not discuss this
the photos, the invoices, and anything that the exterminator said, which were all provided together with the initial um case. So, and she obviously made sure not to remind him of it. So, between him forgetting to review that, then obviously there's nobody there to tell him. and he brings up, okay, you had no
extermination, so it's three and a half% between this and this. So that's basically what it is. It wasn't taking into consideration. The proofs are quite strong. Um, if you need me to read out where it was, I can. Which exhibit, I have them here as
um 6B, P31, P34, 35. But you have photos there. You have his notes and um you have some invoices from him. So, as you can see, he concludes a determination based on this extermination issue. And in his transcript, I see they did not
bring up anything about the exterminator's notes or proofs. So, just have one question for the bureau. Uh we we had this case uh previously and
we remanded it back so that the exterminations could be reviewed. So were the exterminations reviewed? Cuz from what we have from December 16, 2024,
uh the decision that granted the 3.5% rent deduction, at that point the exterminations hadn't hadn't been reviewed. So, we need an update. [Music] Yes, I am.
I do. Okay. So, from the time of the hearing, um, and I'm not sure who because there were two people in the room. So, if your landlord was there, um, whoever your representation was, they were somebody. It wasn't just me and her. Uh we had had several attempts to get this thing done and so by the time we got here um there were no proofs
given to me in that hearing nor were they emailed to me to prove that there was any extermination done. Within the determination you'll see that from the time limit that that that is factual. There is no evidence that there was any extermination done. If anything she was blamed because they said that we couldn't find the proper time to connect
with her in order to get into the room. Uh in the hearing she also proved to me that they never gave her ample time. So if 24 hours if a person is working 24 hours is not ample time if you're not going to do it outside of their work hours. And so uh the determination was based upon the fact that up until the
time that we had the hearing there was no evidence that was given to the bureau to to determine that any extermination had been done at the time. From from what I recall uh what you're saying is is true. But I think at that hearing,
the last hearing that we had, uh the the exterminations were provided into evidence. No, not for this case. This is our first my first time with this case here. Yeah, this is the first time for this case here. This is that's a separate case you must be talking about. Okay, maybe cuz I thought I recalled.
No, this is our first time before. Point of clarification. Yes. And looking at the documents for this one, I also thought I saw two extermination invoices.
No, not in this one. I don't I don't have anything. Show them. Can I? Yeah. Okay. So again, when I everything that we've given you in the email states that from the time from this time frame and and the determination is based on this
time frame, right? So if there was anything that was done outside of this time frame that was not within this determination. Okay. So okay let me just ask a question too also. How many um apartments in this building?
Yeah I believe it's nine total. Nine. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah. Nine total. Nine in there. Okay. All right. Oh, anything else? Oh, but as as as Sullivan mentioned, we did see two
exterminations in in the package we just received. What was the time frame? Uh of the exterminations, right? Are they within the time frame? Yes. Okay. Let me just clarify. Uh makes me sound like I'm crazy here, but I'm not. So my original
very original response within the first time frame of the petition was a letter exhibit 6P24 dated 5162023. All my proofs I haven't submitted anything since then. So I'm not saying I'm not sure what he's referring to. All my proofs of the extermination, the photos, everything
was done in this very original response of mine and I haven't even submitted anything since. So there's clearly a mistake here and it's getting reconfirmed again now. Um, like I said, all the invoices and the photos were submitted as my first
response and never done anything since. And then to clarify, seems to be confusion. I've never been here before. There was no other landlord. This is my first time. There was a determination which wasn't in person. It was on Zoom or Teams. And this is my first hour
Warner 110. The landlord's first uh representation here. Um, I'd like an opportunity to speak to the tenant. Good evening. Good evening, Dominique Galloway.
D O M I N I Q U E G A L L O W A Y. Right here. Yes. How you doing, Miss Tired? This will be relevant later on when I And I Hope this doesn't come off as being
I about to say I can't hear him. Yeah. I hope this is not prying too deeply, but um because I took a look at the lease agreement and the language that was contained there and I do know that you did indicate in even I think one of the transcripts that you have that you do have children. How many children do you
have? Two children. Okay. I was just curious because I know in the lease agreement there was one child. I've been living at that residence for over 11 years. My daughter is 10. That's why she's not on the original. She didn't exist. No, it's not a problem though. Two is not a problem. I'm just explain
I'm literal and I overexlain everything. So, please don't take that personal. No, no, no, no. It's all good. Um, well, present your case and then um Well, can I um answer what y'all was
saying or No, you can answer that, but try to keep it to three minutes. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. I've been up since midnight. I'm delirious at this point. But basically, I've been there for 11 years. Jay is a part of the seventh
landlord I've had since living there. That's the first issue. The second issue is when we get an exterminated is here and there. It's not every month, which is why the problems can continuously be
there. There's nine units. Myself and apartment nine, which is above me. We I've been there 11 years. He been there longer than I. Everybody else is in and out, in and out, in and out, which is why the rodents are in and out, in and out, in and out. We all know this is
Jersey City. We all know rodents move with people, which is why it's the constant turnaround. When I emailed the landlord, I when I originally started this case, that's because they told me, "No, we're not sending no more um
exterminators there because you're the only person with rodents." Right? I'm on the second floor. There's three floors plus the basement. I highly doubt that mice walk up to the second floor apartment since knocking on my door and say, "Hey, can I come in?" It's impossible. I have a close relationship
with everybody in that building. I'm not the only person. I emailed the landlord exactly on April 17th. I said, "I've been noticing huge water bugs. I have stage three cancer, chemo, everything else. I cannot be around germs, all of
that other stuff like I am a walking, you know, anything can happen to me." I emailed him on the 17th. He ignored me. Emiled him back on the 29th. I said, "Something has to be done about these water bugs." He said, "The exterminator will call me on the 29th." I emailed him
on the May 7th. When am I going to get a call? He emailed whoever's in control of the building now. Told him to check it out. He's like, "Oh, yeah. He's coming Friday. This is when um this is Thursday." And I'm like, "Well, when was I going to find this out? What time are
they coming?" Jay tells the new person, I don't know his name, so I can't. Um, it's Asher or something like that. I don't know. But he was like, he told Asher, "Disregard her. Some people are never happy." Now, I am a career
employee. M you can't tell me 8:00 at night that somebody's coming tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. I am going from my house from 3:45 a.m. and I don't make it back home till 4 5 6:00 after going to doctor's
treatments and being a mother. You can't email me 6:00 at night. Oh, exterminate is coming tomorrow. Clean clear out the apartment. how I go to bed at 8:00, which is why I asked to sit down. I'm
dizzy. Now, when it comes to the rent, when the first email change started with us, my rent is magically late. I printed out my credit report over 20 years of credit history. I have zero late payments. Why would I start now?
My rent last month again, we got the email, a confirmation date, another late rent. I got proof of that. Now, I literally asked them for access to the portal. I have not had access to the um
tenant portal for the past two years. I have email proof of that. I said, I need access. I can't access the email. He goes, "Oh, something's wrong with your email." I have my same email, Dominic Galloway 87 at Yahoo, since I was 11 years old. You're not going to tell me
at 37 it doesn't work. Every month I have to say, "Did you receive my rent? Did you receive my rent? The rent from last month? I mailed April 7th. They claim they never got it because mail takes long. I mail June rent on May 7th.
They cashed it already. How you got May rent but how you got a check from May but you didn't get a check from April? I've been a a clerk for 13 years. You're not going to convince me mail takes two months to get from Crestill, New Jersey to Freehold, New Jersey. It don't work
like that. And I have proof. I'm always to I'm always being told ignore her. We don't have to send an exterminator. We already I'm sorry. Uh sorry, Miss Galloway. Just uh coming from just so that we're on We want to stay on topic. No, this is the topic. This is the whole
failure to maintain services petition. I was just about to Yeah. Well, no, but this is the failure to maintain the um that all of this about rodents from that. We're talking also, but you're mentioning payments for rent and all and that's really not that started because that started when these court
proceedings started, which is and I put it in that email and they said, "Ignore her. She's making it up. We're two different departments." If you're two different departments, how is my my rent not received the exact month that this started? Needless to mention, can you
give me just one 20 more seconds and just please just try to wrap this up? I asked for access to the portal to pay it online. and they refused and they said it in this email, we're not going to pay for you to have access to go online because we don't have to pay for it. But
then when I have landlord tenant I mean when I have tenant issues like to put in a service issue, they tell me don't email us, put it on the portal. I have that email as well. If you tell me don't use the portal and you won't pay for me to use the portal, don't email us. How
do I contact y'all? I'm done. All right, I'll do it. Okay. Thank you very much, Miss Galla. Well, here here's my concern. Okay. I just want to add one thing. So, when you look at the receipts that that were sent to us for the because I'm just dealing specifically with the road situation. Yeah. No, I don't I don't need that. I just I'm just
dealing with the So, when you look at the receipts, what they what they submitted was a whole building roadmination. But even on 126 in the notes, it said it excluded her apartment. Mhm. So the issue wasn't whether a exterminator came. It was did
he have access to her apartment? Okay. Right. He did. I would have a question even regarding access. I just this will help me with my decision. At least my opinion on the decision. So you're a tenant. Does the landlord or a super or anybody else have a key to your
apartment? No. When I'm when I'm informed in advance, I leave my door unlocked or I leave my key with either apartment 9 or the old apartment 2. When I am contacted, I was not contacted. If there's an emergency situation for
somebody to get into your apartment and you're not available, what kind of provisions is set up or is there anything that has been set up between you and the landlord if there's an emergency and somebody has to get in your apartment? if if he calls me, I
contact the person that has keys to my home and they can be there. Okay. So, yes. All right. The other is I did have an opportunity to take and this is and and pardon I try to look at things factually when I looked at the
documentation that was supplied in terms of the photographs because I think that's also key. What was the condition of the premises? Now, he pulled out the stove. I didn't know that stove can come out like that. So, it was stuff under the stove and he swept it out the way
and he said, "Oh, you don't pull out the appliances." I said, "If I would have pulled that and something would have broke, you'd told me it's my fault." And I had plenty of emails every time I put in the service issue. He say, "We didn't break that. That's not our fault." And I also have the city violation list right
here. And it's the same problems in my apartment to this day. And this is from two and a half years ago. I wasn't as concerned just in full disclosure at what was behind. Did it concern me what was behind the stove? To a degree, but there was stuff in front
of the stove. That's the front of the stove. I No, I'm talking about the condition. No, absolutely. Yes, cuz I'm cuz I'm trying to answer him and he Well, you let him finish. All right, I'll shut up. Go ahead.
Yes, there were there was there was stuff behind the stove, but I was looking at a picture of what appeared to be a refrigerator and a stove. And what I saw in those pictures kind of supported that maybe
the condition of the premises isn't as clean as it should be. And that's just my opinion. I wish I could have had pictures of the remainder of the apartment or something of that nature, but the reality is I do know that if you don't keep a premises relatively clean, there are going to be infestation
issues. I've lived in apartments. I've lived in houses and I just think that that's relatively relevant. Can I please repeat yourself and I want my chance? Basically, yes, you saw stuff pulled out
in the front, but if I'm not home cuz I left my apartment unlocked for them to enter alone, you can easily pull out a stove, sweep the stuff in front. Oh, let me get my proof. That take two seconds. I can FaceTime both my children
right now. It say walk around the house. I didn't warn nobody. I ain't even see my kids yet today. I've been outside all day. We can face them right now. Ask them what the house look like. You can look right now. Well, I don't I don't I don't really feel like that's
the issue. I think that if it's your apartment, knowing the area like I know it, every apartment has the rodent situation in there. So, the exterminator should be and this is Jersey City now.
So, it's all over. Everybody got it. So I can't look at a condition of a person's house to say, "Okay, it's only here." When I can go in the basement of a building and say it's there or I can go in the backyard and say it's there or
the alleyway is there, you know, it's lot of lot of little different things to get to a conclusion, you know, and I don't I don't want to signal her apartment because of a situation. She wasn't there. So if they did
something, pulled stuff out and made made a mess, whatever the case may be, and however the condition was behind it, understood. But again, that doesn't the whole up building is infested and it
needs to be exterminated. So that's just what I think on that. Can I just add one thing on that, President? Um and that is if you have regular extermination going on, it's almost a partnership in the building, right? Where an exterminator
will come in and they will actually advise the residents what they should and should not do and they will assist in possibly pulling out appliances and seeing what's behind there because a rodent doesn't care if it's under the stove or in front of the stove. It's going to find it, right? But the point
I'm trying to make is I go through this in my apartment. As Dana just said, this is this is all over Jersey City. Our exterminators come once a week. They get into each unit, a blessing, and they work with everybody in the building to
say, "Let's go over your problem areas. Let's pull things out. let's make but it makes all the tenants feel like they're a part of the community and then the problem doesn't persist because if one person has mice the whole building has mice and you have to do the best you can to make sure that that problem is
mitigated and it has to be done in a way where the individuals feel like they're part of the community. the exterminator gets to know the individuals in the building because as we said before, if those receipts were accurate and they were showing that it was a buildingwide extermination but not an apartment
specific extermination and this was the only time it happened, then that's kind of that doesn't really apply in this situation. So, I would just say whatever happens forward, whatever we decide, make sure that when you get an exterminator in there that they're able to get into each unit. You're working
with each tenant in that building and it becomes a personal relationship. I know my exterminator by name because he comes every week and we have a conversation. We have relationship. He helps me and you know what I don't have I haven't seen a mouse in my apartment in 3 years because of that. So that's that would be
my personal recommendation would be make sure that the exterminator is part of the process gets to know who the tenants are and you get that resolved. And can I add something else please? And so a part of the hearing process was also we brought up the fact is was this a
regular time? Um so that you would know. So when you look at the evidence um you look at actually where there's um text messages and one of the text messages uh the tenant asks still haven't seen still haven't had the exterminator since January. When will my then again she
also asks will my bathroom be finished? You go on and it says haven't had one for February as of yet. Why? Why do I have to ask this every month? Then there's another one. So, there was a pattern where I saw that there was text messages asking when is this person
going to be here versus having a set date every month that you can already prepare for? Yeah. Can I ask you a question? Yes. I'm sorry. The landlord a question. Oh, how often does this do you have a scheduled exterminator? It's not every month. No. What is it?
Just so that you understand, if he's going to speak, he has microphone, right? You can have a seat. It's usually bimonly. Um, every other month. Yeah. Is it like bimonthly? Scheduled like set like the second
Saturday of every other month. He sends me bills. No, no, no. I'm not That's not what I asked. Okay. Do you know the person shows up besides the bill? Yes. So he's he he every invoice has um signatures and uh from the tenants and
okay so it comes every other month. What day of the month? I don't know the information. And the reason I'm asking is if she's asking you it's a simple like hey they come the second Saturday of the month right or every other month like why wouldn't that be a like it's pretty simple to solve I don't know I
don't know the answer about that but what I do know is that we I made an appeal based on something um a determination made where clearly this wasn't discussed at all furthermore Mr. just said even his testimony now was saying he didn't he didn't see any
invoices about that and then coming back and see saying he saw that there was no access. The invoices have it they have access. They have his signature. They have photos of the apartment. So what do you mean there was no access? They were inside the apartment. Um they were submitted by the first time and when at the time of his determination he did not
take that into consideration at all. So I'm appealing that uh and everything she just spoke about now. I'm not even sure what she was going on about the payments and the portal. That's not relevant now anyways in front of this. So I was appealing that. Now pulling out the stove from experience as a property
manager 10 years you're going to one of the main sources of uh rodents in an apartment mice especially is in back of a fridge and back of a stove. That's where the food goes. From what I understood she said that what's so hard for the exterminator to pull out my stove and to clean in back of it. That's
not his job to clean and back of it. But if you're going to make a mess and I've seen what it looks like also in the apartment, but whatever. Um I've you saw the pictures and that's that's the source of extermination. You shouldn't be breaking a stove. You pull out a stove. But stoves are meant to be pulled
out uh with all that food. Then he rightfully said that I that is he said that determination based on the based on I'm going to answer. He said within the time frame. So I'm asking that's why I was asking it was within the time frame and all the proof was submitted but he
he didn't see it for some reason. He said when he came up he said anything nothing was submitted without it surely was it's here. He said in the time frame. Yes. Everything was in the time frame. It's submitted here. Okay. So my now my question is sure. So if you look at the two invoices we have you say the
time frame so that right they don't they don't qualify for within the time frame. But he submitted two invoices and the one invoice and again he has two invoices and one specifically says that her apartment was not was not they couldn't get access to. So he's saying that the exterminator came but there was
still no proof that he went to her apartment and we only have two invoices and that one invoice I have says out of the two couldn't get into her apartment. So the question again that he's answering is do you have a regular schedule where somebody can get in there? And then when the exterminator
came, he put her own footnote that I did not have access to apartment 6. So again, it's whether are they coming and do they have access. So the one that was in the time frame, they didn't get access or neither one was in the time time frame. Correct. Neither in the time frame. How can neither one be if we have signatures and we have photos and your
determination? You ask in the trans. Hold on. What's the time frame on the determination? Let's go here. The determination. the the time frame we're looking at on the determination August 27 from the months of August 2 of
August 2022 through November 2024 and what's the invoice dates you have one invoice date for 126 2023 and there and there's the footnote that we could not access her apartment and then you have another invoice for 11:30 2022 and
Again, within the hearing, she made claims that they still did not get into my apartment. So, again, the invoices saying he showed up, but there was nothing that said had access to her apartment. Okay. Can we review the invoices? And I'm not sure which footnote, but they have signatures. They have photos. So, there were in fact, can
we confirm that there were invoices in this time frame when you said there was not? There are two. We have on record. Do we have two, but by your transfer? Excuse me. Excuse me. So, we're not doing this. U Mr. Jim. So you have two, but they're So you have two invoices. One, one specifically says out of this
whole time frame, the only one that does not specifically say they didn't have access is 11:30 2022. 126, 2023, you have an invoice that says they came but they could not could not access to apartment. So they were you have two that they were at the
building just in our unit. two that they were out the building that what I had from the time frame of August 2022 through November 2024 I have two invoices I have both invoices saying they did have access so can you just refer you said they don't have so here can you tell me the invoice number let
me ask you this have they been there since now since that yeah I think she got an exterminator recently but during that time allowed to speak no you have to speak And again, let me just
this is my last statement for the record. He he just confirmed we have two invoices from two years. Two invoices. Exactly. Exactly. So for how long you owned the the building?
Let me let me start with that. I managed this building I would say uh or managed the building years. How many? I think five years. Five years. Yes. That building had violations when you brought it or when you managed it? No. Yes, I
know. It's this tenant only. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Sir, I it's ride through. Please share them with me. Okay, I'll share this with you. I ride up and down MLK every day. All day. I ride through
the city all day. So, I know the trouble spots throughout there. Yeah, that particular building is always trash in front of it on the corner. The trash is not put out properly every time I ride by there. And
it's and I'm not picking on you. I'm just telling you what I see. And this is the night of garbage. It's like the garbage bags are ripped open and the garbage is all over the street, especially on that corner.
Now, I would expect the store or the restaurant across the street to have the problem, but I can ride down your side up by the school on a garbage night or even a
night like now. I can go up there now. It's just like that outside. So, the maintenance is not happening just for the building. I know already. So, I don't know what's inside because I don't live there. But I know just from
seeing the outside, the responsibility is not there the way it's supposed to be for the tenants. So, if they complaining, we got to start or you have to start doing a lot better as far as keeping the tenants safe along with the
trash because that's a it's problematic right there. I don't know why it's like that cuz I don't see the people hanging out. But I see the trash constant. So if your super is not there to clean up, if you don't have a super, maybe you need to get one. I don't know what you're
doing, but it's it's not it's not it's not a good look up there. Good. I appreciate your criticism, but you started saying that we have a lot of violations in the building. That's not factual. We don't have No, I didn't say I didn't say that. You did say that. So on the record, there are no violations in the building. Any violations are
abated timely. There is one tenant that keeps on calling the city. This is apartment six. One out of 10, one of them that calls the city all the time between fire fire prevention, between health department, between everyone. So what you said was infactual. Sorry to say there are no violations whatsoever.
I don't know what's going inside the building. I didn't say I said outside. What you're bringing up is irrelevant. First of all, because we're here for an appeal. me writing very clearly, okay, that he did not regard whatsoever what about these invoices and in the transcript you'll read he says was
anything done about the extermination no obviously I expect him then to make a determination that you're going to get something if your landlord's ignoring I was very clear in my deter in my response originally he disregarded it that was wrong that's why I'm here today do what's right review it and change his
decision thank you question oh do I have a question for you Please, I'm going to be very brief. You just made a comment that the problems appear to come from one individual. Is that accurate? Because I I'm really curious about why are that
other tenants also contacting you about this? Why what why they're not contacting you? Well, I know with the extermination, I know there were some people that just didn't respond to the exterminator. Okay. So, most of them did, but the only thing I can allude to is saying a lot of the tenants, most of
them are new. Um, so they're renovated apartments. They're made nice. They're kept clean. You know, they were they were she's been living there for 12 years. So, it's 12 years of grease. I've been in that apartment. 12 years of grease. It's going to make her being the only person complaining. Uh, the other
buildings were redone. Most most of the other apartments are redone. They're nice and clean at any time when I go in there. So, she's probably used to living at the same place. and treating her, treating that apartment the way she treats it. That's quite normal then, especially when you move away the stove, the fridge, places where they need to be
cleaned to be able to fight uh rodents. Thank you. Thank you. Motion to close. Public portion. We have a motion to close by uh chair chairman Hill. Uh sorry, corporate council. The determination also
mentioned a a shower faucet being broken. Is that something that we should discuss as well? Well, tenant, do you have a shower faucet problem? They finally come to the microphone, please. 10 minutes. Well, well, the shower he's speaking of
is on his notice of violation from se September 20th of 2021. And that wasn't fixed until this year around January, February. Okay. So, it's fixed now. Okay. Yes. Two years later. Yes. Mhm.
All right. All right. Thank you. Close. Now we can close the Yeah. Now you can motion to close. Motion to close the public portion. Second. Sorry. Uh so I have a motion to close the public portion by Commissioner Williams and seconded by uh Commissioner Hamilton.
Uh, all in favor of closing the public portion of this meeting. I thank you. Up to you guys. You want to read it out? Who wants to read it out? Who got something to say? Uh, just again, you
have to speak. We have a mic. Okay. you want to read it or um after taking in consideration the details that have been shared and this is just personally my opinion if I take a look at code 260-9 and it instructs us
as to what the powers and duties of the bureau of rent leveling are and if I look at 260-94 it says to review these applications and investig stigate complaints prior to final decision being made. If I had to render a decision
here, um mine is that the condition of the premises just were not maintained to the level that they should be based upon the photographs that I saw and just the information that was shared. Do I think that the landlord did everything
perfectly? Not at all. But I do believe that the underlying problem that really occurred here, as evidenced by I don't see other tenants making complaints, the other apartments are allegedly a little bit cleaner. Um, I really do believe
that the problem kind of is concentrated to this one particular apartment for the reasons outlined. And for that reason, I um am making a motion that the
um tenant be denied the reduction in rental costs. We have a motion by uh Vice Chairman Sullivan Johnson to deny the uh rental
refund. Do we have a second? Okay, it is defeated. Motion defeated. So, oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Seconded by Commissioner Hamilton. Um, we're going to take a roll call vote uh on the motion
to deny uh to the uh I'm sorry, deny the determination. Uh, Alexander Hamilton. No. Okay. Uh, Chairman Hill,
no. Okay. Commissioner Ecock, abstain. Okay. Commissioner Williams. No. Okay. And, uh, so uh, Commission uh, Vice Chair Sullivan Johnson. Yes. of.
Okay. So, um we have one four and uh three against with one abstaining. That's Commissioner Ecock. So, the motion does not pass. It's defeated. So, then the last one.
So, make Hamilton. Yeah. Make the motion. Are there are there any other motions? Yes. Okay. Make a motion to accept grant the rent reduction of 3.5%. Okay. So, we have a motion to affirm the
uh determination by the hearing officer. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. So, we're going to do a roll call vote. Commissioner Hamilton. Yes. Okay. Chairman Hill. Yes. Commissioner
Ecock, abstain. Okay. Commissioner Williams. Yes. and commit uh vice chair Sullivan Johnson. No. Okay. So, we have three uh
three to sorry three to the one with one abstaining uh the motion passes to accept the hearing officer's recommendation determination. Sorry. Right.
Okay. Okay. Can I make a comment though? Yeah. Can I make a comment? Yeah. Okay. In general, even though this has been determined, I I I still want to go back to what I said before about there being a partnership between
management and the tenants and this exterminator because obviously this problem will come back to us again and that's what I don't want to see. So, I think we need to get on the same page and make sure that the extermination is definitely
more regularly scheduled. If you can't reach somebody, then maybe the exterminator's got to come back for a special visit, whatever it may be. That being said, you know, your stove can come out now, right? So, let's make sure we take care of that, too, because what you don't want to have happen is when
the exterminator comes, they can't clean what's under there. Now, I'm not saying that that dirt was probably over years because you didn't know it could come out, but now we do know. So, now let's just make sure that we're doing whatever we got to do inside the apartment with due diligence so the exterminator who's
now going to come back regularly, right, can actually make this work for both sides, right? Well said. We'll uh we're going to call the next case. Yes. Next case. Next case will
be hardship for 336 New York Avenue. 02. Miss Hurley. Yeah, this is pretty bad. Okay. Lieutenant attorney. Hi, I'm I'm Robera Tarkin. Oh, Tark. I'm
sorry. Excuse me. I am Robera Tarkin, attorney in behalf of Spell T as in Tom. A R K A N. council three three to three minutes please. Okay. So I I have not been here before on this matter but I'm aware that
there have been numerous meetings hearings and yet no determination. There needs to be a final resolution. Um the the ordinance does indicate 60 days within 60 days from the final
submission of the landlord there should be a determination because it's clear that the when a landlord makes a hardship application they believe it's a very real important reason they cannot afford to maintain the building. They can afford to keep the building and so that
60 days is a time limit time frame for the board to work within. But here it is. I believe it's now more more like 10 months and it's extremely unfair to the landlord. There was from what I understand a recommendation from the board. I believe it was indicated
initially as provisional but it's my understanding that from when this was issued after this was issued um with the recommendations of the increases to the apartments the violations have all been abated. So, there are no outstanding
violations. Now, I know that the tenant um and the attorney um have made and perhaps and I'm going to do it again today, bring up issues that will distract you from what we hear about
today. We are here on a hardship application and that's it. And the ordinance talks about the factors for you to consider and therefore there was a recommendation that was made. The fact that the tenant may accuse my client of
certain acts that you may find maybe even reprehensible acts that you cannot even cannot believe happened. It doesn't matter because we don't have due process here. We have it in the Superior Court of New Jersey where they filed a suit.
This is not the hearing to address these accusations which we are saying are completely false because every time the tenant has a problem, they blame the landlord. There's a frozen pipe. There's a pipe that burst. The landlord did it. Yeah. The landlord went and ruined its
own apartment that cost them thousands of dollars. But that's the type of thing this tenant does. And then I understand that you on the board, you get concerned. I understand that. and any tenant can come here and make false accusations. Oh, they put stuff in an
apartment to um to smell it up to make us leave. That's not here today and should not be considered. You should not in any way get to your emotions where if you think these tenants, you know, we're we're concerned about them. That's not
what we're here about today. You're only here about a hardship application. And as I mentioned, I know Miss Hurley because she did graciously send me a complaint that was filed in Superior Court New Jersey. That's where those allegations will be met and we can do
discovery and all the normal procedures that parties can do to hash out those types of allegations and defenses and that's where it should be considered. But your hardship ordinance does not in any way permit you to indicate or be the
factors from the tenants or be emotional uh with respect to the tenants. It's just about can this landlord um does he meet the burden in the hardship application as Mr. Goldberg had talked about the different factors. Um the
constitution is very clear that a rent control ordinance has to permit an owner to make the fair rate of return. It's all from the constitution that so that it's not confiscatory as Mr. Goldberg talked about. So those are the factors
that you are to consider not the other factors may that may play in your emotions. And we ask that you do the right thing. We um want to end this today. We want to have a final decision um so that we can now then put forward the increases to the owners so that my
clients uh can now uh maintain the building properly, afford the building uh and not have the losses that they suffer from every month which really in light of the fact the ordinance did indicate six day 60 days and it's now been 10 months. This is the right thing to do. Thank you. Thank you.
Is there a representative from the tenants? Actually, before the attorney leaves, can I ask a question? Oh, well, I can wait. You can. Good evening all. My name is Elizabeth Hurley. the legal director of the waterfront project and I am here on
behalf of Annabassad and other tenants at 336 New York Avenue. Now I am an attorney. No, I'm the legal director and an attorney at the waterfront project um here in Jersey City. Now this hardship application must
be considered within the context of the bureau's recent recommendations and determinations about this property. Now, Miss Tarkin is absolutely right in her her statement that the board or the the
the board must consider the question of whether this hardship application should be granted in light of among other things other factors that are um listed in the ordinance whether these expenses are substantiated. The sub the expenses
that the landlord has submitted to all of you um in its evidentiary submissions. Um, I submit to you that these expenses are not substantiated and I'm happy to walk through each of them. Now, uh, in exhibit 1C P5, which the
landlord has submitted to you, the expenses listed among other things are, uh, for the year for this building, management, $10,800, cleaning, $4,000, repairs and maintenance, $4,000, legal fees $1,000.
And none of this uh is to mention the loan fees that the landlord is um incurring each month. Now, I'd like to address each of these in turn. Let's talk about management of the building. The building is managed by Holland Management. Holland management, the
bureau determined in its October 2nd recommendation, is part and parcel of Jersey Mountain 6 LLC, the owner of this building. These two entities are intertwined. They are owned and operated by the same exact individuals. And this
uh the bureau determined that the the uh fees that are incurred by Holland management do not take place within an armslength transaction. There's no third-party estimate to legitimize the fees and fees schedules. the property
management expenses build from the applicant to the landlord were omitted from the bureau's calculation and that recommendation should be heated. Now, the the $10,800 costs that are listed uh as the
management fees include invoices that are listed at pages 19 to 21 of the management invoices. You'll see that these invoices are to uh Jersey Mountain 6. does not even indicate who they are from to the extent they are from Holland
Management. Again, they should be disregarded because these are not fees that Jersey Mountain 6 is actually incurring. Now, let's talk about a security fee of $840 that uh is also listed. Now, in its um January 14th,
2025 determination, the bureau noted that among a uh patterned uh campaign of tenant harassment, the landlord had um staged breakins, coordinated break-ins, including gluing locks open to allow un
undetermined or unknown individuals to break into this building, go into the basement, all for purposes of tenant harassment. There should be no security fee that this body takes into account in determining whether or not this hardship stay or this hardship application should
be granted. Now, with regard to repairs and maintenance fees of $4,000, this the the the bureau determined that among other violations that the landlord had committed on this on this property, they had no
superintendent in this building as required by the Jersey City rent control ordinance. no superintendent, no repairs regularly being made. And in fact, in its January uh 14th determination, the bureau noted that one of the tenants, Miss Anna Basset, was without working
plumbing for a period of over five months. No plumbing, no water, and all of her written notices to the landlord went unanswered throughout that entire period. Miss Basset can attest to this as well, but when she approached a person who was previously employed as a
superintendent by the landlord for other properties, he informed her that he had been instructed not to service the building because the landlords wanted to quote drive the tenants out. Now, in light of that and in light of the fact that beyond basic repairs, the landlords
affirmatively damaged the premises in in unspeakable ways, um repair and maintenance fees of $4,000 should not be considered um in in this body's determination of whether the hardship application should be granted. Let's
talk cleaning costs of $4,800 and really get into the weeds of what this landlord did in this building. On February, in midFebruary of 2024, the tenants started to notice a foul and pervasive odor of fish in the building. It got worse and
worse. The tenants themselves uh undertook an extensive cleaning campaign, scrubbing the hallways, the stairways, their own apartments, bleaching things, trying in vain to deter to to address this smell. All while there, pleased to the landlord for
help went unanswered. On March 13th and 14th, they finally figured out what the smell was because police found that two vacant units in the building were stuffed with dead fish, feces, and rotten milk. Now, one of those buildings
or excuse me, one of those apartments was still occupied or was still lawfully leased by a tenant who happened to be hospitalized and a senior citizen who who was in long-term care. The landlord utilized this that apartment and another
on the third floor to plant these disgusting things in order to drive out these tenants. And for over a month, the tenants of 336 New York Avenue endured this day in day out, wondering what is going on. Now, the the
bureau found, quote, that the finding of dead fish that were obviously planted throughout vacant units and the failure to address the tenants's complaint about the smell shows the landlord's blatant disregard for the tenants's concern. And
yet, the landlord has the audacity to claim $4,800 worth of cleaning costs for the building. Now, if I could just very quickly address two other uh sources of fees. uh legal costs. I just want to note one
thing with regard to legal costs. This is only an example of why uh these expenses are neither substantiated nor justified. There is a $1,000 legal cost build by OPF and Hines for work performed in October 2023. This relates
to the filing of an ejectment action under docket number HUD DC10351-23. That action was an ejectment for apartment 1R. Mr. Mitchell, who who is the senior tenant whose apartment I referred to previously, was hospitalized. The landlord paid the at
paid an attorney to try to eject unauthorized occupants from the premises and then used that very apartment to plant these disgusting things, dead fish in this in this building to drive out all of these tenants. Now, why should
the tenants have to pay for the landlord incurring these legal costs? Now, I I counselor counselor, can you make it really quick? Really quick. Yes. Yes. Very quickly, it bears noting that the highest monthly cost that the landlords are incurring is
their loan monthly costs of 74 $7,400 and yearly cost of $89,000. the the landlords when they purchased this property and took out a loan of $775,000 to do so knew this was a rent controlled unit. They knew the the
individual rates that tenants were paying. The only successful business model for this property to make any money was to drive out rent controlled tenants. When that didn't work, here they are with plan B asking now to allow them to shift their costs onto the very
tenants whom they tried to drive out. Now, I ask you to deny this brazen application for a hardship application in light of all these circumstances. Not as Miss Tarkin suggests because we are pulling on your heartstrings, but because the expenses they are pointing to are unsubstantiated and unjustified.
The constitution, which Miss Tarkin brought up, does not require tenants to bail landlords out of an unprofitable purchase. The landlords went into this transaction with eyes wide open. They are an LLC. the property manager is an LLC and it is not the responsibility of
hardworking Jersey City residents to pay for their bad deal. I thank I thank the board for its time. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, you want to you wanted to speak to Oh, I did counselor. M counselor talking, please.
So, with everything that was said by Miss Hurley, that's not the question. That's not the question. I just had a question. Oh, okay. And that was pertaining to something that was raised by the at um is there a superintendent on premises
now? There is now. Yes. They corrected when they were raised when issues were raised, they corrected those issues and they have a super on the superend his exact name. Could you tell me his name? Do you know which apartment he's in? Which apartment?
We could provide you the name tomorrow, but number more the name. We'll get we'll get the name now. But more importantly, we discussed this in the last meeting and I
think the bureau was going to look into whether there was an on-site supera. Was there any progress on this? Well, there there is an on-site super right now. We're going to get his We've needed independent confirmation.
There is um if I may, there is a reference to superintendent cost in the October 2nd, 2024 um recommendation. Um it found that the agreement that the landlord provided with the um alleged super, Pedro Martinez, was not affirmed or not
notorized between the super and Mr. Feldman, which fired by statute or by the Okay. Uh you asked is is there an on-site super? That's the question. Has it been verified by the bureau? Right. So, Miss Hurley did not address that and I don't think she should be doing what
she's doing interrupting. Um is he finding out the name? He's saying was f Well, they're asking the name. Do you well we no we'd need a bureau to confirm the contract and that
the person is actually functioning. Okay. The allegations made by Murley should not be considered. We will address them in another court. One one thing there too uh the bureau indicated it would investigate the status of the
criminal proceedings at our last uh time we heard this. So again, we go to the bureau and ask, "Have you investigated the status of the criminal proceedings?" Mr. Bowwin, please step up. Okay.
Do I uh need to be sworn in again? Uh, Assistant Director Eric Bullwith, hearing officer for this case. Uh, yes, you're right. We remanded it uh to uh review to see if there was a superintendent. Uh we've received
nothing other than a registration and a rent roll stating that there is an individual in unit 2R. Uh I don't know if I should put his name on the record, but either way there there is but it has not yet been confirmed. We have no other proof uh that this person actually lives
in this unit and facilitates the needs uh for the tenants as a superintendent. Uh also too, uh just an update. Um the substantial compliance just give me a moment
here. We have Just for the record, it was also claimed in October 2024 that there was a super and there really wasn't. So that's why we really want to get to the bottom of this. Yes. And I have one of the emails in the exhibits from uh chief prosecutor
Jake Hudnut. I'm sorry. Chief uh this is chief municipal prosecutor uh Jake. Uh last name Hudnut. H U D N U T as in Thomas.
Um, yes. Okay. And so, uh, we received an email from, uh, Chief Prosecutor Jay Cudnut, uh, stating, uh, September the September 9th, 2024 that the, uh, summones were handled by him personally
and that the violations were abated. That's what was open at the time. However, uh there is still a violation that was issued by our manager of uh office landlord tenant relations uh
which was a violation of this is 260. See this would be uh 260-2F. Obviously, um that was abated because they did submit a registration.
Uh however, uh it it is still uh possibly incomplete. Um but I don't know I don't have an update on that summons from Jon Car uh Janna Carroll, also known Janna Noel. Um and I can say yes there there has
been notice provided to the bureau office of landlord tenant relations that you know in the form of a registration. We have a superintendent that resides in this unit. However, that has not been confirmed by our bureau. Okay. Do you
have any uh questions? No, I have a question for counselor. Just uh you speaking to the mic too, you guys. Just a quick question. Yeah, mic goes on. There you go. So, I want to make sure I'm clear. Sure. So, for building, there's only six units in this building.
Yes, there are only six. And for a six-unit building, you have to have a live-in super. I didn't think for a small building, they had to be they had to be within a certain distance, not livein. No. Uh the ordinance reads that any um any building that is six units or more uh is required to have a
superintendent living on the pres uh uh uh on the property. Yes, there are some exceptions when sometimes there are owners that have two block and lots, two multi-unit buildings, and then we allow that there's a superintendent in the one
building and then that that superintendent will be in charge of both properties and be responsible for both properties as super as a superintendent. But yes, in Jerry City, if you have a property that is six or more units, you are required to have a superintendent. And that I'm sorry, that is in uh 254.
Mhm. Tom, right? Yes. Just for the record, Tom Colleen confirmed that. Thank you. Uh, any other questions? I I think you discussed the code violations. Uh, Eric. Yes. But, uh, we
had a question also about the criminal proceedings because it had been raised last time that the bureau indicated it would investigate the crim the criminal proceedings. Yeah. There there we've have no update of any uh c criminal uh
again as far as is concerned uh there are criminal charges that um probably are still pending for sure. Um but uh we we don't know what what the resolution is there. I'm sorry. There's no court
date or anything set up. We don't know. I don't know. I do not know. I again um as far as like substantial compliance is concerned, it only pertains to the the the local ordinances and that property. Okay. Because the the tenants at the
last meeting said that there were bench warrants out uh for the uh individuals, right? And because they're not showing up at the cases. Yes. And I I've gotten again as far as uh pro chief prosecutor Jay Hudnet has uh confirmed with me uh
that all those summones and cases were abated. Those violations were abaded. Um now with the exception though uh again Miss uh Miss John Carol uh she has uh a summon. I believe that is still pending. We have no we haven't received any
update on that. Okay. Either way, it it had for the six months provisional period there it is again still violating the ordinance. Right. Okay. I just want to say though that the the criminal allegations are
outside of this board's scope and substantial compliance is not perfect compliance as we discussed in the earlier cases. It's um let me read the definition instead of speculating. It's the the housing space
and dwelling are free from major health, safety, and fire hazards as well as in compliance with heat and hot water and sanitary requirements. Just to contextualize the discussion here. Thank you. Right. Is superintendent now the realm of that?
Right. Yeah. Can I I want to read that what you just said. Um, a property without an on-site superintendent is required by 254-45B 28A. Okay. It's a municipal ordinance that you must have a
superintendent on site. The landlord must provide that on site. That's the question tonight. Is there is there a superintendent on the site? The bureau cannot confirm that you're exactly. So because chairman
So because there's no superintendent, nobody can confirm the landlord is confirming that someone's there, but we haven't been there to uh see and there was nothing provided to the board to say that there is a s super there. Um
You could you could jump in. Yeah. I just want to say I mean I was going to ask the counselor this question like we knew this is a big issue. How do you guys not know who the super is and what this person's name is? I would have thought you would have shown up tonight with that information since we knew that it was pertinent to this case. You seem
to be unprepared. You're making calls. You're trying to find out what's going on. I think he has the name. He was I I that that's fine. That hasn't been confirmed yet. You need to have the name. you need to present your case to us and you didn't show up prepared with that. None of you did. So, I don't
understand how that happens. Well, we had a lot of issues dealing with. Um, but it's a person's name, though. I mean, you don't even know the person's name. He has the name registered. That's not I don't know the name. I I ask my clients. They say, "Do you have the
name?" Yes. Where in Come here. The name is put in the registration and it's filed so everybody could read the name. That's what he has. So that's why I don't deal directly with him. So I don't know who the super is. Nobody need to put you
under Lutter Feldman. Yes. Go ahead. Nobody denies that is a super. Even the tenants agree they know the super live there each and every day and they talk to him when they need something and he takes care of and he and he has a record of the super. So I would know that I have to come here with
the exact name of the super. He didn't want to put the name of the super on. So I don't really think that's that's an issue but if you want us to provide the name of the super but you you making it such an issue that I don't know the name of the super. I didn't know I had to come here knowing the name of the super. I have his name actually right in front of me. Do you want me to say his name?
Well it's not really it's not really that. So what we want that's what he's kept saying that I came here unprepared with that's the name of the stuper that's what I was getting that's what I was getting you know basically I was being incompetent but I have the name I have the name here do you want the name but it's not the name right
so again um we have not it's in the registration so that's why there's a reg okay the office has not received he has he had it Mr. Bowworth had this the registration if I can he
was about he asked you do you want me to tell you the name of the super cuz he had the registration so but it wasn't submit was it it wasn't it wasn't affirmed it wasn't affirmed it wasn't submitted or they if they want to go they could check it out what do you mean do you need to affirm by going to the
building to speak to him or what do you consider affirming it because normally you just write it in a reg that he's in the apartment that he exists. Well, how would you want it to be confirmed? We have to have send someone out there. Okay. Well, he has the information. He could go send
someone out, but there is a super. I have his name. That's part of the stipulation from the last time they came before. So, those things need to be clear before today. Do you know when you submitted the registration? When they submitted it? Yes. I think he has the registration. He might know the date on
it. Uh yes, they submitted it in uh January. They submitted uh two registrations. I believe one was January 3rd, Jan and the second was January 6th. Um yes, again they did for just for clarity of the
record, they did uh name an individual in a part in unit 2R. Uh but again, is there a reason why between January and today it hasn't been confirmed?
I I I don't know. I mean, they again, this was on the property owner to provide proof. So, what do you we registration? I don't know what else you're asking. It's kind of silly that you're you're saying this to us. When we
did the registration, we you have the name. So if you could please so you have said over and over for clarity we understand you didn't follow up to see if he if he's there if you can always do that but appreciate if you stop blaming the landlord when they provide the name
they put it in the apartment number and we believe that there's no issue on that only an issue that is being created because well you didn't you didn't investigate we we rely on on the rent registration exactly and the rent However, you're probably going to have
tenants here tonight that say otherwise that there is no individual living at this property in that year. Why would you say that? Because we've received two tenant petitions from these tenants in the last few six months, five months. That's when
the super was put there in January. Okay. Between January and now between J from January, it's been corrected. So I'm just saying what you're you're making all these assumptions which are not right on your part. Okay. Miss So council miss
talking that she's seen this individual in unit 2R knows for a fact that this individual lives there. That's what council is saying on the record. I didn't say that. Right. Okay. So then there there isn't you're spec No, I you're speculating and that's what I
have an issue with. Council, is there a superintendent at the property residing in unit 2R at 336 New York Avenue? According to my landlord who file the registration, there is and I have his name. Okay. And you have the registration that has it. No. Okay.
Thank you. Let me speak to one of the tenants. Thank you. Thank you. Three. I It's apparently he's now in He's in three R. Not I live in 3R. Huh?
I live in three R. Sorry. Yes. My name is Mark Rosenthal. Rosenthal. R O S E N T H A L. I'm a tenant. 336 New York Avenue, apartment 3 R. Yes, I do.
336 New York Avenue, apartment 3R. Thank you. Yeah. Well, um there's a lot of obviously uh factual jumble and things and and different names that get put on stuff different attorney every time. However, I recognize this attorney, Roberto
Tarkin, because my wife and I met with her to discuss this case for her to represent us um at an earlier time. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know if that's okay or not okay. She doesn't remember. She at that time advised us, "You're probably going to have to go because the landlord's going to get what they want
anyway." And we said, and we said, "Are you working for them?" She also represented another tenant um in our building who was looking for representation. Totally irrelevant. Okay. I just But it's true. Hold it. Okay. I'm just just just hold it, hold it, hold it, hold it, hold it,
hold it. No one no one speaks out of turn. This is my spot. Everybody calm down. We do one at a time like I addressed earlier. Mr. Rosen Doll. Yes. The
question is, is there a super in the building? Yes, there's a super in the building. Okay. That's all we need to know. You know his name? Yes. His the name listed for him is Santiago Rodriguez, I believe. I think it's Santiago Rodriguez. He only answers to the name the guy that I've seen as
Ruben. Okay. But is someone there you've seen him? Your tennis have seen him? Yes. Okay. Since early since the beginning of this year, I think or the very end of last year, but not from when we, you know, not from the last time when you came before us. Okay. I'm not here to make up any stories or fabricate
any anything. Um, I just want to say as well as far as multiple names, the man that just swore that his name was Luther Feldman uh told us his name was Simon Feldman and he signed various various documents as in the name of Simon Feldman. He was summoned in municipal
court as Simon Feldman and never came. But now he's a Luther Feldman. He told us his name was Simon when he introduced himself to us, just so you know. So if we're talking about fairness and fair return, once again, in contrast to the other landlord from from the other case who had been there for 40 years and had
never filed for anything, these people came around, asked about the building, found that it was rent controlled, came in, tried to drive everybody out. It's been the plan and it's been working. They don't cash anybody's rent. In our case, 12 months, didn't cash our rent. Then, as soon as there was a proceeding
from the the bureau against them, they cashed all of them at once. They did it in another unit. It worked for them because they had no money. And when they came around for to to cash all those checks, they no longer had the money, so they had a non-pay. So, they had an eviction. Great, great strategy. They did it with an old man who was a 50-year
tenant in the building. Then, finally, after harassing him, telling him to go to other units of theirs for more money, telling he was going to have to leave eventually, he found have to object to this. He has no right to speak on a subject. He found another place and as soon as he left they they they cashed all his checks at once when he was out of the
building. Please, you'll get a chance. My point is this is not a a a good acting uh landlord. This is you will be subsidizing a bad business deal. That is exactly what's happening. They're doing it in multiple locations and they're trying to do it to us. This you you can just say, "Hey, it's the numbers.
Nothing we can do. Our hands are tied." that this is this is who you'll be subsidizing and this is the deal that you'll be making and this is who who you will be helping out in this case. As far as the abatements that are concerned, I'm not here to lie to you. There are there there were repairs that needed to be done that got done when they wanted
this to get across because they knew they wanted their hardship increased. So, all of a sudden, after never doing anything for a very long time, they showed up and made and made some uh some adjustments to some of the apartments. has nothing to do with the overall fact that there's all kinds of I in in some of the filings for for the super. I was
named at at various points. It had to say in our hearings with the bureau, obviously I'm not the super and have never received a scent. I would know about it if I had. If you have yourself listed as an expense, okay, you don't want to include that expense because it's not factual, but this is the kind of actor that we're talking about and
this is the kind of deal that you'll be subsidizing if you help these people with their hardship increase. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Anybody else got anything? I think another wants to come up. Anna Basset.
B A S E T. Raise your right hand. Swear the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth. Truth and nothing but truth. I do. All right. Before you start, Miss Basset, we know all about the department with the fish and all that kind of stuff. Just if you're going to tell us something
different. I will try. I did write something, but I could just whip through it if that's helpful. Okay. Okay. Okay. I'll be mindful of that, too. Okay. Um, so when we were here in November, uh, we asked the board to
consider the ongoing harassment complaints against our landlord as a part of your review of their hardship rent increase application. And at that time and still today, uh, the criminal mischief and harassment charges are active against the property owner and operator, Zebstein and Simon Feldman.
Uh, we were told these matters belonged in municipal court. Uh the landlord's attorney the last hearing claimed ignorance and uh of any wrongdoing and asked the board to ignore those issues and focus solely on the increase just like we're hearing today. So I just
really I want to clarify this. I want to drive this point home and it can't be overlooked. We are here today because Jersey Mountain 6 LLC filed for a hardship rent increase. Holland Management, the property
management company on paper is the entity who we primarily engaged with as the tenants of 336 New York Avenue. Jersey Mountain 6 LLC and Holland Management, as we've stated earlier, are one and the same. They were both owned
and operated by the person that we know as Simon Feldman, but is here today claiming that his name is Eluther Feldman. um and their property management manager Zevy Stein. Uh for the purposes of the statement, I will refer to them
collectively as the landlord. And please remember the point that they are not separate entities, but they are one operation using multiple names, one person behind it all. So based on the public records and our interaction, it appears and this was something I didn't realize I was going to learn by him
acknowledging his actual name because this is something that we were concerned about. But based on public records, it appears that the individual presented to us uh who identified himself as Simon Feldman um and insisted and we have this in documentations and records and you also have the records as well um with
the city and the different filings that they filed. Um he insisted that he was separate from the building ownership and an owner of Holland Management. um he is in fact Eluther Feldman and the evidence that we've submitted for judicial review at the municipal court um suggests that
Simon aka Luther deliberately misled us about his identity and involvement in the harassment and that deception alone uh requires judicial scrutiny um and especially given the fact that they haven't appeared in court. But now I
know why you can't summon someone who doesn't exist. So, regarding the determinations of the failure to maintain services, the office of landlord tenant reviewed our petitions for failure to maintain services. And to refresh your memory, in my unit, as you heard, I lived without plumbing for over 6 months or working
plumbing. Um, all while the landlord engaged in a multitude of other criminal mischief, intimidation, and harassment tactics against my neighbors and I. Excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt. Um, this is the hardship application. So, understood. We're reviewing testimony for the hardship application and not um
supplied services and the criminal allegations are outside of this board's purview. I would like to repeat that. Okay. the criminal allegations. I guess I will reference the hardship, the failure to maintain services petition and just say that we postponed the
determination based off of whatever findings uh the office of landlord tenant was uh I guess determined and ultimately they did determine that our our claims of harassment, dead fish, feces, etc. were indeed factual. That is
written um and I know Director Richardson can uh attest to that and I do have the documentation here if you need to see it. Um, ultimately, uh, since our last hearing, I'll just wrap it up by saying, um, that would have been November, so we had the
hearing, the failure to maintain services hearing in December. Since then, two ceilings have collapsed and there's been a major whether you want to call it a cut pipe or a burst pipe. The bottom line is is that from the third floor all the way to the basement, my
unit including some kind of major issue uh happened and flooded out the ent floors uh of the building. Since then, you know, no one has actually came back to check on top of the superintendent situations. I would I would say that that would be important to to confirm and make sure.
Um, and ultimately it's it's the same thing that you keep hearing, but I think it it it's important to emphasize again. This person who is here today came to the building before they bought it and interviewed us, came around um
disguising himself as uh part of the previous ownership's management company. He asked us intrusive questions like the health status of the elderly tenants in the building and other just uh completely inappropriate questions that made us very leerary of him. Then one
day he shows up with letters saying pay Holland management you know we're the we're the property owners and management company now. So we started paying and at the very beginning the harassment began and little did we know until we started realizing that it was intentional given
the dead fish etc. So ultimately, um, we're just asking for the board to deny the increase in full based off of the fact that they are non-compliant in municipal court. This person has used a false identity for this entire process.
And they're now uh we've there is now a consumer fraud um submission uh lawsuit against them because of these very things that we're here for today. This is a yes we experience a a harassment
campaign of unspeakable things. However, this is just harassment in another form. It's a legal loophole. Um so ultimately, you know, the landlord's ultim uh operating under multiple names and false identities. Um and they they require judicial accountability, not a financial
reward. That's it. Thank you. Yeah. The ordinance provides that landlords who cannot meet their operating expenses or are not getting a fair return are entitled to a hardship increase. It is your job as the board to determine if
the operation, purchase, and maintenance of the building is prudent and efficient. And if you think that it's not, you can discredit those specific requests for a hardship in the calculation. Can I ask a question? I have a question
for the landlord. Land, you landlord if you can answer it. When was the when was the building purchased? Um, it was about two years ago. Um, okay. At the time of purchase? Two years ago. Was it profitable? Was the rents were low?
No. No. No. That's not Okay. Wait, hold on. Okay. Was it whatever the percentage of return they wanted to get two years ago? Well, I'm sure the answer was no. So my question is in the past two
years, where the hardship come from? The hardship if you bought the building and it was below what you wanted to earn, where did the hardship come from? There is no um I believe the ordinance does not restrict it from if if the
purchase was uh more than a year. We know taxes, water, insurance have But you know that before you bought the building they knew they didn't know the taxes were going to and insurance was going to go up. Water is going to after everyone has experienced increased water bills. So I'm increased insurance bills
extreme. So you and taxes so all those things went up significantly and made it a hardship. That's what my question is. Where did the hardship come from? Well, I don't think we h this. We don't have to prove that everything occurred after the purchase. That is not the
requirement. It's it's not. But the but the taxes, insurance, and water have gone up significantly. But for for you to say that, well, had to occur after you purchased, that's just not the element of the hardship application or or it would be written into it. You're
demonstrating a hardship. So the the the the statute the hardship application does not require the issue that you're asking me. It it just does not. So it looks to the factors by the attorney. Yeah.
260-10 paragraph E says the board shall deny all or a part of the relief requested where specific findings of fact support the conclusion that the landlord purchase or operations are not reasonable, prudent, and/or efficient. It goes on in paragraph F to begin to
say the board shall only include expenses that are reasonable, necessary, and usual operating expenses. And and that's why the board had made a recommendation of increases that they took off some fees that we had looked for. And there was recommendations of rents of
approximately 1,800 and change. I it's in the chart that I have um over there. Um but it just doesn't look to the factors that you're saying. You know, there's different ways. If I know I I know what you're saying. This is an investment. I know what you're saying. You bought it. You do a due diligence.
They interview tenants. So, if you did that much, you didn't run the numbers. That's why I'm like I'm not trying to downplay the whole ordinance. Yeah. There's all different I know. I understand what you're saying, but that's why it's looked after after one year. There's a lot of different factors
that go into a building, operating a building, owning a building. And the fact is that having this hardship application approved will make everyone's lives better. The apartments will be better. The apartments will be safer. They can be maintained um properly in that the landlord will have
the money to pay. Um and and again, the only way these any of these rent control ordinances are constitutional is by having these hardship application um uh clauses in there. Um but I certainly do understand what you're saying. you know,
and um you know, there's there's lots of buildings out there and for some people it's not a prudent investment. For other people, it is a prudent investment. Um were people jumping online to buy this building? I really don't know. Anyone who buys a rent control building has to
always be very careful. But in the end, they've owned it for about two years. um they've they've made it they've done away they've taken care of the violations and they are running at a loss and that's what this board should be considering and the with rents that are
$515 no one can afford to maintain a building um when you have you see taxes insurance and water and just labor goes up costs go up materials go up everything to that effect but my colleagueu's question is the same
though. Wouldn't that have come up in your initial due diligence? I'm I'm sure it did come up in their initial due diligence, but it doesn't mean a hardship doesn't develop, right? What was their plan? We've been hearing about a game plan uh to resolve that
lack of due diligence in the initial purchase and and now you're asking us to Yeah. Well, the hardship application clause permits that um you know there are different they could you know potentially um you know when they got
their mortgage it was because it was considered um that it was considered um appra that fit the appraisal. So I don't think it's right to accuse my clients of overpaying when there's a mortgage company willing
to provide a loan on this property. Let's not even go there. Well, well, you know, there's a lot of bad loans, right? But also, I mean, it depends on their their strategy. You can buy something and if you expect it to increase, there's different ways to do
investments. There's different ways to manage buildings. There's different ways to purch and if it was easy, we'd all be and the unfortunate thing is real estate, you do a lot of work upfront before you purchase. There's water. You can ask for bills, water bills,
insurance. you get some numbers. I mean, I've done property management. So, I'm quite familiar with this. So, that's why it's you can't just buy it two years ago and then all of a sudden you have a hardship. The ordinance says that you can. If you own it for 9 months
and you either show that you're not getting a fair return as defined by the ordinance or you're unable to meet your mortgage and other payments, then you can apply for a hardship increase and the board can grant that. This conversation may be more fruitful if
instead of we're discussing reasonable expectations or due diligence to specifically what are the costs that the landlord is claiming, are those reasonable? Are those justified? Are those proven and to what point do do you
find that there is a hardship as defined by the ordinance? And that we put in all our paperwork. You know, the taxes are well 20,000. Actually, that's why I asked to you know for his as he's added what's
changed that's why I'm asking that's why my original question what's changed so I understand what the hardship became cuz if the numbers haven't changed then there's no hardship you bought it's been consistent that's what I'm asking like if it's consistent then there's no
hardship I didn't no one said it was consistent but under the definition of the hardship in your ordinance we've shown that there is a hardship We were not asked to provide what was it when we dated purchase what's it you know 18 months or 2 years later but the
hardship before within the ordinance which is what you have to follow as much as you might find it distasteful for certain reasons your own personal opinion you really do need to put that aside because this is the only way we are going to have properties that improve in Jersey City I think both are
true right 260-10 10A says, "In the event that a landlord cannot meet his or her mortgage payments or operating expenses or does not make a fair return on his or her investment, he or she may apply to the rent leveling board for increased rentals provided that he or she has owned the building for at least
9 months prior to the time he or she applies for an increase." And then paragraph E in 26010 says the board shall deny all or part of a relief requested where specific findings of facts support the conclusion that the landlord purchase or operations are not
reasonable, prudent, and or efficient. That is what the conversation should be focusing on on specific things that are unreasonable or specific things that are not adequately proven. Okay. I don't think there's anything that's been shown that my the landlord acted in any way
that was unreasonable or imprudent. Um they actually that would go to Eric. No offense, but I'm sorry. What? No offense. You're you're defending the landlord. So if it's unreasonable or something that would come from Eric stating what how they determined whether
it was accepted or not. Well, I'm I'm the advocate and I I completely understand. You're doing your job. I So was there certain things you want to add if if Mr. Felman, go ahead. Who has never misrepresented his names. It's
that was really wrong those statements. But this building we bought for a lot under the market price for six family in the Heights. That's why we bought it with this intention to renovate it, make better the apartments and then uh
increase the rent based on the renovation CPI, whatever it's called, capital improvement. Capital improvement. But meanwhile, we can't. We're stuck with it. Yeah. Six family. We we we paid a million dollars for this. Now, the the value of any six
family in the Heights is 1.6 and up. Even rent control. They paid all the business. If you know, if you know you were buying a a a rent control building and now you're saying your plan was to buy it, fix it up, and make money off of it. Those two things contradict each
other. He didn't say make money. He said he did. He said to get higher rents with he was going to fix it up and and capital improvements. No one said he was going to make So then you have the wrong filing. You filed for a hardship. You should have did the improvements and filed for a capital improvement. There's two different filings. But he falls
under the hardship because he cannot meet the expenses at this point in time because he didn't do his plan. Yeah. properly. He did. He bought He bought the building well below the market what the market is. Well, what he just said
did not it's not matching what Okay, I understand. But that's how he he in the real estate business bought the building well below market. He believes he was making a prudent investment. Um, right. But also buying it under market doesn't help your argument either because then you're now admitting that the expenses
weren't that much to even get into this in the first place. So I don't understand that. No, I don't. the expenses are the water water insurance. I I get that part. I'm just saying if your initial cost is buying the building, you bought it under market, then you're already sort of in a a place
where you you're buying it because it's rent controlled. Like those two things kind of go together. It's under market because it's rent controlled. Now you're saying you want to fix everything up and bring it up to market value. That doesn't going to be able to bring it up to market. That he probably can't. He just said market value in the Heights
was 1.6 six or whatever it was. That's But he's going to fix up the apartments, but right now he qualifies for a hardship because he cannot he he falls within the formula set in the ordinance and he did bl pay well below market, but
here it is after 9 months he was able to file for an application. I don't know how many months he exactly waited. We're following we're going by the ordinance. If the ordinance made people wait 5 years, it'd be a different story. The ordinance is not written like that and
we know that taxes do not double in in 9 months. So there's a reason why the ordinance was written the way it was and probably to encourage some kind of development. But you're just you're ignoring the fact that the ordinance has it's within it 9 months knowing that
there are so many factors with real estate improving real estate. If you don't let landlords apply for hardship applications, you will have dangerous buildings dumps in throughout Jersey
City. These are ways to encourage buildings to be improved so landlords can at least have a way out to make these to pay their bills. And it's also required by the constitution. So when so council well these rent control
ordinances would be deemed unconstitutional. I wrote an article on it once so I know this. It would be deemed unconstitutional if you do not apply the hardship application hardship statute the way it's written the way it's written. Not the way you want it to be. You may say you should wait 5
months. It says 9 months. Go ahead. I'm sorry cuz we going to be here all night about this. Okay. Go ahead. Yeah. It should have been a capital improvement from the beginning. That's what they should have done. But they found themselves
underwater because they thought they was going to get the money just by going and say I'm going to raise the rent. How are they that that I don't see how that makes any sense because a capital improvement takes a long time. You can't just go in and raise rents rent control, right? So you fix up the how how can you
fix up the buildings, right? So if you can if you fix up the building then people will say okay I can understand why you you're raising the rent because you fixed the building up. Right. Right. So now that that says okay I I did this I did that. You guys got to pay me now because I did this and that. But you
didn't do none of that. You just said I bought the building and now I'm going to raise your rent. The the capital improvement and fixing up the apartments is an avenue that landlords can take. I don't know whether or not it fits in this situation. I can't answer that. And
any situation that buys an apartment, there's nothing mandated that a landlord has to go and fix up the apartments and put through capital improvements that may or may not be granted that will be capped versus hardship. You keep
ignoring the fact that the constitution, the ordinance requires the hardship application. Every person So every person that buys a building can claim a hardship right away, right? No, they can't do right away. No, they can't. Right. So or you have a 9month wait,
right? So So what you if you're you're buying it for an investment, right? So if you're going to invest in something, you're going to put something into something to get something out of it, right? It's like planting a seed. You're going to water it so it can grow, so you can get the fruits from the labor, right? So when you same thing with with
this if you're buying something you're expecting it to grow to become something else so you can get something out of it. But you're buying something and you're saying I'm not going to get nothing out of it so I'm going to go this route. I want to put on the way you're looking at
this is not at all correct. It's not at all proper cuz you're going outside of the hardship clause in the ordinance. All these things that you're talking about are irrelevant. Irrelevant because the ordinance says not to to consider what it says and
nothing else. And you have to follow your ordinance. But but even he said he bought it under market to fix the apartments up. He expected to fix it up. He did. Which goes back to the capital improvement route. It doesn't matter. It kind of does. It doesn't
because we the application that's before you is a hardship application. That's all that matters. Okay. That's all that matters. And you have to follow your own ordinance by Supreme Court of New Jersey. All right. Thank you, counselor. That's Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Listen. Yeah. Very briefly. Less than 30 seconds. Very briefly cuz Yeah. Very briefly. I just want to say that the language of the ordinance is what is at issue. And what the ordinance provides is that an owner of a build or
if if a landlord has owned the building for 9 months and can't meet their expenses, they may apply for a hardship uh or they they may apply for a hardship exemption. Not that that will be granted. They're not entitled to it just
because they apply for it. the they have every right to when they establish those prerequisites, but they are not entitled to it despite what they want to have happen after having made this deal. I worry about the precedent that granting
this application would set because basically it would say if you can get yourself a mortgage, it doesn't matter how high, if you can wait 9 months, you can get a hardship and raise the rent and meet your expenses. And essentially it is a runaround against the rent
control ordinance which is so essential to the ever dwindling supply of affordable housing in this city. Now just as a as a final note because I know you know emotions are running high. Um really there's the only thing to look at
is are these expenses substantiated and are they justified? Was this reasonable? and looking at those individual expenses that they themselves have itemized and looking at the fact that they have not supplied evidence to substantiate. She already put this on now. Okay. Okay.
Listen, listen listen please. Could you please but you spoke? No one interrupted you. So, but you spoke already. Please. You spoke already. Please. I do ask that that the the issue come down to that very narrow
question. Have these expenses been substantiated for purposes of determining that there is in fact a genuine hardship beyond the fact that the initial plan to buy a cheap building, drive out the rent control tenants, and charge more didn't pan out. Thank you so much. Thank you. Motion.
Oh, so I just wanted to add to just wanted just to repeat what council shared with you guys. When you look at uh 260-10 and this is E again, it says the board shall deny all or part of the relief requested where specific findings of the fact support the conclusion that
the landlord purchased or operations are not reasonable, prudent, and or efficient. I'm sorry. Uh the way this reads and again it it it's one it's both. And so as the council said, you're looking at operational expenses and was the purchase reasonable. And this is
based on what I'm reading based on the ordinance, right? So I believe you can look at both situations. Okay. Motion to close the public portion of this man. Sorry. Okay. We have a motion to close public public speaking. All in favor? I
I public speaking is now closed. All right. Come on y'all. Okay. If if we look at the recommendation, you did uh project a number of their uh expenses.
So it seemed the calculation at first well the landlord calculated 115,584 you were able to substantiate an increase of 32887 then that would be uh specific
findings. Well I'm sorry what's the question? The question is, you know, based on your review, you did reject a number of the expenses that were submitted. Yes. I I again getting
back to the uh property management company and the actual LLC, the owner. Uh that was I determined that was an arms length transaction or a fair market transaction. So, I omitted that from from the um the proofs.
if it was backed up by a third party vendor uh or a third party estimate, right? Uh where it would substantiate that these are actual uh management fees and that they they make sense, then I I would have kept them in, but there
wasn't any. I think they were relying on the fact that um I would never know that the two parties were one and the same. Director, what was that ordinance you said?
26010 E, right? Okay, I'll make a motion. Uh, make a motion. No. Uh, councelor, for us to uh disagree with any part of the
32887, we would need to have specific findings. Yes, I think so. because you're saying uh we could find that uh wasn't reasonable or prudent uh maybe
the purchase to begin with, but for us to have anything to say about the 32887, we'd we'd have to say, well, X amount needs to be disqualified for this reason or Exactly. Okay.
Uh my last question, if we were to accept the bureau's recommendation, can we also make that provisional? Yes. Yeah. I think did he ask
is is the recommendation to ask for a provisional? Yes. Uh yes. So yeah, my recommendation was for provisional, but again that that's only on the basis that there is
substantial uh compliance. Um we've heard I mean my only feeling was I think it was the most important was that there was a superintendent there to facilitate the needs of the building and the tenants that live there. Um we have we've received testimony that there
there is. Um, so I mean, Mhm. I again as far as any major violations, I have not again been not I I've not seen any and I I've not um I've not been notified by the prosecutor's office that there are
any. Okay. And we're working we're working from the um recommendation uh for the hardship calculation as of May 31, 2024. This is what what we had in our
file. Okay. Yes. And you you should have had the October which is in the ex the exhibits should be an October 2024 recommendation. And there was no other filings from the tenants about any problems in the
building. No, nothing like that. You don't have an office? Not to not to my knowledge. No. Okay. Uh if there was anything as far as like if there was anything as far as like violations pertaining to the property to the property, not to that were filed. Right.
Right. Property stuff. Uh now there are petitions that are open and there are violations there. I'm sure from my understanding is that it's been abated and again this is just a recommendation right you can deny you
can approve you can modify question um Eric based upon You're saying that everything has been abated in terms of any violations as of when? Uh, okay. So, that would be September
2024. That was the chief prosecutor. Um, again, I don't believe it falls under the seriousness of the violations, right? The superintendent does not or does it? I would have to defer to corporate counsel.
It's a 254 violation, but again, that that was uh res obviously resolved. They have a they have a superintendent. We had testimony tonight that there's a superintendent in the building. The only reason I kind of was even bringing that up is because I heard a contention
tonight about some plumbing issue, whether it was flooding and things of that nature, and I was just curious as to what particulars were around that. May I address that? Well, it's a closed b we've closed it to the public. Um, so I will say this too.
I've also heard testimony tonight that I doesn't sound like this was a reasonable investment. Right. Also, there's nine there was nine months that you have from purchase of the property to file an application. I
received this application exactly 9 months after the purchase of the property. Come on, man. Um, I've been in contact with the quote unquote property manager, Zevy Stein, who works for Mr.
Feldman, and he is also not noted to me that, you know, they are looking to do capital improvements and and they they they want to do capital improvements to the building. Uh, this was prior to them submitting the hardship application, but f first they wanted to submit the
hardship application. just that's my whole I have a question for council. Um so obviously the recommendation is far lower than what the landlord is claiming.
How how quickly can they file for another hardship if if this were to be approved? How quickly would they then be able to file for another hardship after this? What's the time limit on that?
Frankly, I'm not aware of one. If the hardship though requires that the landlord show they cannot meet their operating expenses or pay their mortgage or they're not getting a fair return set by ordinance. So, these are things that
you need to look at as the board and say, are these expenses that the landlord is claiming to say, I cannot pay this based on what the rents are, are those reasonable expenses? Right? are those adequately supported by the
record? And that's and that's where the review comes in and the determination of yes, we'll go with the bureau's recommendation even though it's lower because we don't feel that the landlord has adequately and reasonably supported
their claim that that the rent should be higher or that the operating loss is higher. I'm just asking just because I want to, you know, understand what the possibilities are after this and could they come back in another month and apply again for hardship over two months
or whatever it may be. I'm just asking. Yeah, I I don't see right now in my brief review of the chapter, I don't see any limits on filing again in a month, but they would have to prove right what
what happened, where is the new expense coming from? And the board would have to find that it's reasonable and prudent and adequately supported. anything have a motion? Yeah, let me do the All right. I'm not supposed to, but I'll
do it. I encourage you to have the discussion on the record or when making a motion to list the support for your yes recommendation or motion based on
260 260 10 E to the board shall deny all or part relief requested where specific findings and facts support the conclusion that the landlord purchase or or operations
are not reasonable, prudent, and or efficient. Motion to deny hardship. Okay, we have a motion uh to deny the hardship. Do we have a second? Second. And can you please again uh council has
asked to please list your reasons again for your denial for the record? Well, based on the uh information that was given from the landlord earlier about his purchasing of
the uh building. it was for to make an investment versus capital improvement that should have been filed in the beginning. Um, I took that in consideration that the
um, capital improvement would have been in a better position for the landlord to get a proper return on his property that he purchased versus waiting 9 months and then filing for a hardship and then
putting the situation in into the tenants hands. he purchased the part the uh property not the tenants. So for that I'm posting a motion to deny a hardship
case. You're saying you're saying that their claims that they're operating at a loss and they can't pay that. You're that's just unsubstantiated or No. right? They're operating at at a loss,
but I think the the the reason for that is because they they didn't do it with the intentions of of making the investment of a capital improvement to the property to make it better for the tenants in the property.
So, it was just more of turnover of the money versus the property. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you're just saying that the purchase was unreasonable. Purchase was unreasonable. All right. So, we have a motion to deny
uh the recommendation from the bureau. Do we have a second? Second. All right. So, we're going to vote now. Uh motion on the floor to deny the petition uh the um I'm sorry to deny the bureau's determination for 336 New
York Avenue and to deny the hardship application. Thank you, sir. Alexander Hamilton, yes to deny. So for the record, if uh if you want to add reasons to your vote, we encourage you to put that on the record as well.
So has been able to The answer is yes. Still um I don't find that there was enough substantiated evidence regarding any um you know work that took place, bills that took place. Um even in the recommendation it was
substantially less than what was being claimed. Um and I think that this whole thing was wrong from the beginning. I think the way that was implemented was wrong. So, I have an issue with the route that was taken, but I also don't think that the expenses are
substantiated enough. All right, Dana Hill, you've already spoken. Do you want to add anything else to your statement? Yeah. No, I I just want to say that the um I understand the landlord's position, the owner's position. I understand that, too. I I I mean, I I understand when you
purchase something, you're expecting to get the best out of it. I I truly understand that. But I also look at when you getting something like that and other people are involved with it, you should make sure that those people that
are involved with it also benefit. So it shouldn't just be you when other people involved. It should be everyone. So that way if you decide to do something different, nobody's affected by the fact that you didn't do
anything different. And so your vote is again yes to deny. Okay. James Eco, I vote yes to deny. Uh I didn't think the purchase was reasonable or prudent. Okay. Joe
Williams. Yes. Deny. Did you want to add anything? No, you don't have to. Clear enough already. Uh and Sullivan Johnson, I wish to abstain. Abstain. Okay. So we have to in the case of
H240000002 hardship application for 336 New York Avenue. Uh we have a vote to deny four in favor of the denial, one abstain. The vote passes four to uh four to zero with one with one abstain.
All right. Motion to close the meeting. We have a motion to close out the meeting. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor? I consider the meeting close. Thank
you. You did a great job. Good job. I was wondering how are we going to, you know, that's where that's where we wanted to go, but we had to put rights.