Fair Rent Commission

MINUTES FAIR RENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING (HYBRID) OF DECEMBER 11, 2024 Present: Commissioner/Chair Rakim Grant; Commissioner/Vice Chair Cait Duffy; Commissioner Robert Rosenthal; Commissioner Sal Calvo; Commissioner Darrell Fennell; Alternate Stacey Barka (remote) Staff: Atty. Philip G. Kent, as outside counsel for the Commission Public: Atty. David Rosenberg; property manager Jennifer Mascaro; property manager Jennifer Torres; tenant Vincent Maruffi; tenant Robin Andrews; tenant Rose Bisson; two members of the public 1. Call to Order: Commissioner / Chair Grant called the Meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. 2. Public Comment: Commissioner / Chair Grant called for public comment with no response. 3. Approval of Minutes Commissioner Rosenthal made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2024 Regular Meeting. Commissioner / Vice Chair Duffy seconded the motion, which passed unanimously without further discussion. 4. Correspondence Atty. Kent to report on correspondence related to complaints under Old Business. 5. New Business A. Discussion and/or vote re additional revisions of Bylaws Atty. Kent presented to the Commission the proposed amendments to the bylaws. Commissioner Calvo made a MOTION to approve the amended bylaws as presented. Commissioner Dufy seconded the motion, which passed unanimously without further discussion. B. Discussion re various issues 1. Informing community re FRC – Flyer There was brief discussion on this agenda item indicating distribution has occurred but no further action.  2. Other/General Commissioner / Chair Grant called for other business but none was raised at that time. C. Discussion of pending complaints, mediation, answer dates and scheduling Hearings 1. Field complaint status Atty. Kent reported having located no authority to indicate a lack of jurisdiction (and no such argument from the landlord) such that the complaint will be scheduled for a hearing in January 2025. 2. Gallagher complaint status Atty. Kent reported that this complaint was received and notice sent with an answer date of October 23, 2024. Hearing is expected in February 2025. Commissioner / Vice Chair Duffy inquired about reraise public comment in that two members of the public arrived. 3. Wilmarth complaint status Atty. Kent reported that this new complaint was received and notice sent with an answer date of December 5, 2024. Hearing is expected in March 2025. 4. Baker complaint status Atty. Kent reported that this new complaint was received and notice sent with an answer date of December 27, 2024. Hearing is expected in April 2025. Atty. Kent raised and the Commissioners considered a change in procedure to send notice re new complaints and then to expressly review complaints concerning jurisdiction and whether to dismiss or retain a complaint at the next available regular meeting. Some discussion ensued, led largely by Commissioner Fennell. Atty. Rosenberg raised a concern re sending notice prior to determining jurisdiction and possibly unfairly burdening a landlord. Commissioner Rosenthal pointed out the loss of time if notice must wait. Discussion of the Ordinance § 14-76 revealed a requirement to promptly issue notice and there was discussion that a respondent can still move to dismiss a complaint once notice is issued. The Commission determined to follow the proposed procedure to issue notice and review at the next available regular meeting as to jurisdiction, and dismissal or retention. There was brief discussion as well concerning the new rule re a lack of answer permitting the Commission to deem allegations admitted. Commissioner / Vice Chair Duffy moved to reopen public comment. Commissioner Calvo seconded and the motion passed unanimously without further discussion. Two members of the public briefly spoke about wishing to be more involved in public meetings generally and inquired as to what the MFRC does, which Atty. Kent explained. One member of the public noted an article regarding homelessness that concerned her. 2  6. Old Business A. Report re Maruffi repair The following is a summary only. Please review the recording for more details. Atty. Kent presented the Commission with a proposed order and acknowledged Commissioner Fennell’s aid re same. Commissioner Calvo confirmed that the required door lock repair occurred, that he investigated same, and that it was satisfactory at that time. Thus, he reported the repair complied with the Commission’s order. The separate issue regarding retaliation will be addressed separately. Mr. Maruffi was sworn in, however, as he raised issues with the repair itself and although acknowledging the lock was repaired argued that the repair was inadequate. He showed pictures of the door hinge now being damaged again and separated from the door frame. Atty. Rosenberg argued that if someone broke the door after the repair it is not the landlord not complying with the order, but rather a new act of vandalism. Commissioner Fennell inquired further about the repair and Atty. Rosenberg’s argument. Atty. Rosenberg stated the door would be repaired again in due course. The Commissioners discussed. Commissioner / Vice Chair Duffy and Commissioner / Chair Grant agreed that the door repair was compliant. The Chair made a MOTION to find the repair was compliant with the MFRC’s order. Commissioner Calvo seconded the motion. The motion passed with the vote of four Commissioners (Grant, Duffy, Calvo, Rosenthal). Commissioner Fennell abstained. B. Report re status of Yeboah complaint/mediation Atty. Kent reported that landlord’s counsel emailed that the washer/dryer will not be possible and that landlord’s counsel will issue a report soon re same. After a brief discussion led by Commissioner Fennell, the matter will likely be scheduled again for hearing when Mr. Yeboah returns to the country. C. Hearing / deliberations / decision re Andrews / Bisson complaint The following is a summary only. Please review the recording for more details. Atty. Rosenberg filed a motion to dismiss at the hearing, which Atty. Kent reviewed a summarized for the Commissioners’ benefit, including a brief discussion of the prior pending action doctrine raised by Atty. Rosenberg. Atty. Rosenberg, despite the written motion, argued that this matter and a prior pending house code enforcement action in housing court are exactly the same and thus this complaint must be dismissed. Atty. Kent offered advice to the Commission that it has jurisdiction over the pending excessive rent complaint but has three options: 1. Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, if the Commission so finds; 2. Determine it has jurisdiction but wait and see what happens in the housing court; or 3. Proceed on the merits of the complaint in light of the limited rulings of the housing court thus far. Atty. Kent also pointed out that the motion fails to cite law specific to this case or to analyze how the code enforcement action is the same as the excessive rent complaint. Atty. Rosenberg indicated there was no housing court order re excessive rent. Commissioner / Chair Grant inquired about the issues involved in each forum. Rose Bisson discussed briefly the procedure in housing court re rent. Atty. Kent raised CGS 47a-14h (j). Atty. 3 Rosenberg argued that the section cited allows an election of remedies and does not allow forum shopping. Atty. Rosenberg agreed there is no housing court order abating rent. All parties/witnesses were sworn in. Property Manager Mascaro and Atty. Rosenberg reported that there was an inspection today and they expect a report of substantial compliance with the housing court’s repair orders. As to rent, the housing court has discretion to decide how to allocate rent payments based on the repairs done. Atty. Rosenberg acknowledged that the MFRC has power to determine excessive rent. He is worried about FRC orders stepping on housing court orders such that this body must wait. Commissioner Fennell challenged the contention of prior pending action doctrine applying here. Atty. Rosenberg argued the housing court is superior to the MFRC. Commissioner Fennell turned to CGS 47a-14b (j) to point out that a tenant is permitted to pursue additional remedies. Ms. Bisson noted that the housing court action is raised as to code violations, but does not address missing amenities. Atty. Rosenberg asserted all the repairs at issue are the same. Commissioner / Chair Grant considered the arguments. Atty. Rosenberg argued that the fair rent case and the injunction action are two sides of the same argument, but the court has not set a hearing date for the code enforcement action, but it has the power to enter an injunctive order against the MFRC. Atty. Kent pointed out that the MFRC is not a party to the code enforcement case. There was additional discussion that there is no case law on the interplay between housing court and fair rent commissions. Atty. Rosenberg raised the Valle v New Haven FRC case (Spader, J.), but it was pointed out that in that case the issue was retaliation for a housing court summary process case brought after an FRC complaint was filed. There is no retaliation claim or order in the housing court case here. Repairs are scheduled with completion expected before January 10, 2025. Ms. Bisson argued these cases are not the same because this case deals not just with code violations but whether the rent is fair, especially with missing amenities. Atty. Kent summarized the Commission’s options again re the motion to dismiss and pointed out that the prior pending action doctrine deals with judicial efficiency and consistency that jurisdiction per se. Commissioner Fennell also pointed out that no answer was filed in this case. Commissioner / Chair Grant stated he did not see the cases as being the same due to different considerations but doesn’t want to wait. Commissioner Rosenthal stated the MFRC has jurisdiction but if waiting does not rob the parties of any rights it may be best to wait. Commissioner Calvo agreed that if the Commission waits it can dot the “I”s and cross the “T”s to fill in gaps of anything that was not addressed in housing court. Commissioner Fennell pointed out that the motion to dismiss was also sprung on the Commission this evening and could have been raised for months prior. Atty. Rosenberg disagreed because Atty. Gottlieb discussed this at some point with Atty. Kent, who indicated that discussion was perhaps a month prior (without a motion being filed). Commissioner / Chair Grant indicated he would not dismiss this action. Commissioner Rosenthal made a MOTION to deny the motion to dismiss. Commissioner Calvo seconded the motion. The motion passed with the vote of four Commissioners (Grant, Fennell, Calvo, Rosenthal). Commissioner / Vice Chair Duffy abstained. Accordingly, the Commission plans to revisit the case in February 2025, subject to reports to be discussed at the January 8, 2025 regular meeting. The parties agreed to report back to the Commission prior to the next regular meeting, with the Respondents reporting on January 7, 2025, by noon with an answer, and Complainants responding by 5 p.m. There was also discussion that 4 the health inspector may be needed as a witness and that a special meeting may be needed to accommodate his testimony if deemed needed. In addition, Atty. Kent urged the Commissioners present and participating tonight to be present and participating on future meetings / hearings regarding this matter. D. Hearing / deliberations / decision re Venkataswamy Order Commissioner / Chair Grant made a MOTION to put on the agenda the revised order concerning the Venkataswamy motion for fines due to lack of compliance with the Commission’s order against Kosel Equity and Up Realty. Commissioner Rosenthal seconded the motion. The motion passed with the vote of three Commissioners (Grant, Calvo, Rosenthal). Commissioner / Vice Chair Duffy voted against adding the item to the agenda. Commissioner Fennell recused himself. Commissioner Rosenthal made a MOTION to issue the revised order. Commissioner / Chair Grant seconded the motion. The motion passed with the vote of three Commissioners (Grant, Calvo, Rosenthal). Commissioner / Vice Chair Duffy abstained. E. Hearing / deliberations / decision re Maruffi retaliation complaint Commissioner / Chair Grant made a MOTION to put on the agenda an expedited hearing as to Mr. Maruffi’s retaliation claim against Kosel Equity and Up Realty. Commissioner Rosenthal seconded the motion. The motion passed with the vote of three Commissioners (Grant, Calvo, Rosenthal). Commissioner / Vice Chair Duffy and Commissioner Fennell recused themselves. Commissioner / Chair Grant seated the Alternate, Stacey Barka, as a Commissioner for purposes of hearing Mr. Maruffi’s retaliation claim. The following is a summary only. Please review the recording for more details. Mr. Maruffi claims there has been retaliation against him and other tenants, including removal of parking spots, designating him as a “nuisance,” and changing how his rent must be paid in relation to his complaint and the repairs required by the Commission. Atty. Rosenberg asserted that he did not understand the claims made as being retaliation due to a lack of action brought against the tenant and that there was no retaliation including no decrease of services. At some point a case may be brought against Mr. Maruffi and he can potentially claim retaliation at that time. Atty. Kent reviewed the Ordinance on the record re retaliation. The hearing proceeded at the Chair’s direction. Both sides gave opening arguments, presented their case/defense, including certain objections by Atty. Rosenberg, and gave brief closing arguments prior to questions and deliberations by the Commission. In sum, Mr. Maruffi argued and gave testimony concerning the claims of retaliation above. He argued that retaliation started on December 4, 2024, when he could not pay rent through the online portal. He offered no exhibits concerning the alleged retaliation but read from a notice concerning the door subject to repair and a notice concerning parking that had been supplied to the Commission. Atty. Rosenberg raised Mr. Maruffi’s conduct in November 2024 primarily via an episode recorded on video in 5 which Mr. Maruffi interacted with employees at the premises, including “yelling” or a “loud argument” concerning the door repair. Atty. Rosenberg played the audio recording from that video during the hearing as an exhibit previously submitted to the Commission and shared with Mr. Maruffi. Mr. Maruffi acknowledged his voice and the conduct on the video/audio recording, which he argued was justified under the circumstances, and pressed his claim of retaliation. He believes the “nuisance” designation stems from this incident. Atty. Rosenberg cross examined Mr. Maruffi largely concerning the November 2024 incident and Mr. Maruffi further examined defendant’s witness Ms. Torres about the door repair notice he had referenced. Ms. Torres also offered brief testimony largely directed at Mr. Maruffi concerning the November 2024 incident but also concerning the lack of a current action against Mr. Maruffi and whether there was a designation of “nuisance.” Mr. Maruffi pointed out the long delay in addressing issues at the building. Commissioner Calvo interceded as the hearing became heated briefly. During closing arguments, Mr. Maruffi stressed the prior proceedings around the door repair and excessive rent, a purportedly false notice concerning the door, defending against the video, and that his confronting them for their lack of responsibility has lead to the asserted retaliation. Atty. Rosenberg reiterated the argument concerning lack of retaliation, and noted that the parking change affected every resident in his building. He also asserted that any internal designation of “nuisance” as to Mr. Maruffi, is justified by his actions. Commissioner Rosenthal asked whether other tenants were unable to use the rent portal to pay rent. Atty. Rosenberg was unsure but said it can occur when a tenant is out of compliance with a lease and there is no right to only pay by portal. Commissioner Rosenthal also asked whether the claim of retaliation was due to the November 2024 incident or because of his prior excessive rent case. Mr. Maruffi indicated it was mostly due to the November 2024 incident but also an offshoot of the prior complaint. He also stressed the inconvenience of having to pay by check rather than the portal. Atty. Rosenberg raised that the earlier complaint was filed long ago. Commissioner / Alternate Barka asked whether police were called. It appears police were not called. Commissioner / Alternate Barka also asked whether the tenant was prevented from paying in a more convenient manner such as online because he is noncompliant. Atty. Rosenberg was not sure why the restriction is in place but believes it was due to a violation of state statute due to Mr. Maruffi’s conduct towards Ms. Torres. Commissioner Rosenthal commented that the FRC may lack jurisdiction here. Commissioners Grant and Barka agreed. Commissioner / Chair Grant made a MOTION to deny the claim of retaliation because it was not based on anything concerning an FRC proceeding. Commissioner Calvo seconded the motion. Without further discussion the motion passed by a vote of four Commissioners (Grant, Barka, Calvo and Rosenthal). Commissioners Duffy and Fennell stood recused from the proceedings and therefore did not deliberate on the proceedings or vote on the motion. 7. Executive Session, if needed Not applicable. 8. Adjournment: There was brief discussion about moving the next meeting date, but no such action was 6 taken, and the regular meeting is to be held on the pre-scheduled date. Commissioner Rosenthal made a MOTION to adjourn, and Commissioner Calvo seconded the motion, which passed unanimously without further discussion. The meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m. 7