Rent Leveling Board

1 1 CITY OF UNION CITY HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY 2 RENT STABILIZATION BOARD 3 : REGULAR MEETING : TRANSCRIPT OF 4 : --------------------: PROCEEDINGS 5 Union City City Hall 6 3715 Palisade Avenue Union City, New Jersey 7 Monday, January 8, 2024 8 Commencing at 6:41 p.m. 9 M E M B E R S P R E S E N T: 10 JUAN MILAN, CHAIRMAN 11 SANDRA VASQUEZ, VICE CHAIRPERSON ROSANA COLON, COMMISSIONER 12 YAMIRUS HOLGUIN, COMMISSIONER YDALY POZO, COMMISSIONER 13 14 M E M B E R S A B S E N T: 15 NORMA GUEVARA, COMMISSIONER ORQUIDIA SANCHEZ, COMMISSIONER 16 A L S O P R E S E N T: 17 NEIL D. MAROTTA, ESQ., Board Counsel 18 KENNEDY NG, Administrator 19 CHRISTINA M. RIVERA, ESQ., Tenant Advocate 20 FRANCOIS NUNEZ, Staff Member 21 CASMILA SOLIS, Staff Member 22 GUILLERMO MARTINEZ, Interpreter 23 24 SUSAN BISCHOFF, CCR, RPR 449 Columbia Blvd., Wood-Ridge, NJ 07075 25 201-933-8220 SBischoffccr@yahoo.com  2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 LOPEZ NORIS, ESQS. BY: ADOLFO LOPEZ, ESQ. 3 Attorney for 218 New York Avenue 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  3 1 I N D E X 2 PAGE 3 CALL TO ORDER 5 SALUTE TO FLAG 5 4 ROLL CALL 5 5 INTERPRETER SWORN 6 6 REORGANIZATION 7 7 HEARINGS 10 8 218 New York Avenue 9 OTHER BUSINESS 72 10 ADJOURNMENT 73 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  4 1 I N D E X 2 218 New York Avenue, #10 Rent dispute 3 4 WITNESS PAGE 5 CHRISTOPHER YEGEN 13 6 7 8 E X H I B I T S 9 10 NO. DOCUMENT PAGE 11 T-1 8/1/16 lease 18 12 T-2 2018 registration 18 13 T-3 2019 registration 19 14 T-4 2020 registration 20 15 T-5 notice of rent increase 27 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  5 1 MR. NG: Good evening. This is the 2 meeting of the rent leveling board and today's 3 date is January 8, 2024, the first meeting of the 4 year. It is now 6:41, we're in the municipal 5 court chambers, 3715 Palisade Avenue, Union City, 6 New Jersey. 7 Pursuant to the Open Public Meeting law, 8 adequate notice of this meeting was provided to 9 The Bergen Record, The Jersey Journal, and North 10 Hudson Reporter more than 72 hours in advance of 11 the meeting and posted at the municipal building. 12 The notice includes the date, time, location, and 13 to the extent known, the agenda of the meeting. 14 Please rise for the flag salute. 15 16 (Whereupon, the Pledge of Allegiance was 17 recited.) 18 19 ROLL CALL: 20 21 MR. NG: I need to do roll call. 22 Commissioner Norma Guevara, not present. 23 Commissioner Ydaly Pozo. 24 COMMISSIONER POZO: Present. 25 MR. NG: Commissioner Yamirus Holguin.  6 1 MR. MAROTTA: She just texted me, she's 2 on her way. 3 MR. NG: Commissioner Rosana Colon. 4 COMMISSIONER COLON: Present. 5 MR. NG: Commissioner Vice Chairman 6 Sandra Vasquez. 7 VICE CHAIRPERSON VASQUEZ: Present. 8 MR. NG: Chairman Juan Milan. 9 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Present. 10 MR. NG: We have a -- do we have an 11 interpreter. 12 MR. MARTINEZ: Present. 13 MR. NG: I need your name. 14 MR. MARTINEZ: Guillermo Martinez. 15 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Do we want to swear the 16 gentleman since he's already standing? 17 18 G U I L L E R M O M A R T I N E Z, an 19 interpreter of the SPANISH language, after having 20 been duly sworn, did interpret the following 21 testimony: 22 23 MR. NG: Neil, before we start, I want 24 to apologize last meeting that I had to go 25 earlier, I had things to do in New York, very  7 1 important for my other career. But I know that 2 you handled it very well. 3 MR. MAROTTA: Thank you. 4 VICE CHAIRPERSON VASQUEZ: No problem. 5 6 REORGANIZATION: 7 8 MR. MAROTTA: Thank you, okay. 9 So we have -- today is the 10 reorganization of the officers of the rent control 11 board. So at this time, I would like to hear 12 nominations for the chairperson of the rent 13 control board. At this point, our prior chairman 14 was Juan Milan. And at this point, every year, 15 we're required to start the process again. And if 16 somebody could give a nomination of who you would 17 like to have as the chairperson of the board. And 18 the way you do that is you just say, "I nominate 19 so-and-so to be the chairperson". 20 VICE CHAIRPERSON VASQUEZ: I nominate 21 Mr. Milan to continue being the chairperson. 22 MR. NG: So nomination was made by 23 Commissioner Sandra Vasquez. 24 MR. MAROTTA: Are there any other 25 nominations for anybody else?  8 1 COMMISSIONER COLON: No. 2 MR. MAROTTA: There being no other 3 nominations, we close nominations. Now may we 4 have roll call. 5 MR. NG: So the nomination was made 6 Commissioner Vice Chairman Sandra Vasquez. 7 COMMISSIONER POZO: Second. 8 MR. NG: Second by Commissioner Ydaly 9 Pozo. Roll call. 10 Commissioner Ydaly Pozo. 11 COMMISSIONER POZO: Yes. 12 MR. NG: Commissioner Rosana Colon. 13 COMMISSIONER COLON: Yes. 14 MR. NG: Commissioner and Vice Chairman 15 Sandra Vasquez. 16 VICE CHAIRPERSON VASQUEZ: Yes. 17 MR. NG: Chairman Juan Milan. 18 MR. MAROTTA: He's allowed to vote for 19 himself. 20 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Abstain. 21 MR. NG: The motion passes. 22 MR. MAROTTA: At this time, if we may 23 have a nomination for vice chair? 24 COMMISSIONER COLON: I nominate Sandra. 25 MR. NG: Motion for Sandra Vasquez as  9 1 vice chairman was made by Commissioner Rosana 2 Colon. 3 MR. MAROTTA: Any further nominations 4 for anybody else? There being no further 5 nominations, we'll close nominations. If we may 6 have a motion and roll call. 7 MR. NG: We have a motion, who was 8 second? 9 COMMISSIONER POZO: Second. 10 MR. NG: Commissioner Ydaly Pozo. So 11 roll call. 12 Commissioner Ydaly Pozo. 13 COMMISSIONER POZO: Yes. 14 MR. NG: Commissioner Rosana Colon. 15 COMMISSIONER COLON: Yes. 16 MR. NG: Commissioner and Vice Chairman 17 Sandra Vasquez. 18 VICE CHAIRPERSON VASQUEZ: Yes. 19 MR. NG: Chairman Juan Milan. 20 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Yes. 21 MR. NG: Motion has passed. 22 23 24 25  10 1 HEARINGS: 2 218 NEW YORK AVENUE, APT. NO. 10 - 3 RENT DISPUTE: 4 5 MR. MAROTTA: Okay. I just would like 6 to go through the agenda briefly. We have four 7 matters listed on the agenda. The one is a return 8 from last meeting, 218 New York Avenue, Apartment 9 Number 10, it's a rent dispute. The other matters 10 have all been carried. There was a hardship 11 matter, which actually we're going to need 12 conflict counsel for that. So that will be 13 carried to preferably the February meeting, but 14 we'll confirm that. 15 The other matter is 703A-707 28th 16 Street, there was a mistake on the notice with 17 regards to notifying counsel. They sent an 18 adjournment request and we checked it and they had 19 reason -- they didn't know about the meeting in 20 time. So we'll be carrying that to a date to be 21 set. Basically pulled that one from the agenda 22 because of that. 23 MR. NG: Maybe that one could be for 24 next month because everything is done, it's just 25 only the issue with the address.  11 1 MR. MAROTTA: Well, they did put a 2 request not to next month because they have a 3 conflict. 4 MR. NG: Okay. Just make a note for 5 March. 6 MR. MAROTTA: I know one of our 7 witnesses may not be here in March, so we may have 8 to put it on for April. But I believe that 9 counsel, there's two attorneys for the tenants, 10 there's an attorney for the property owner. And 11 that should be discussed amongst themselves to 12 give us a date and confirm that. 13 MR. NG: Okay. 14 MR. MAROTTA: I think that would be the 15 best way to handle it. And then 818 22nd Street. 16 That was a capital improvement matter. That was 17 the prior matter where there was a hardship 18 application, if you recall, 818 22nd Street. And 19 I discussed with both counsel and also the fact 20 that our expert accountant is not here tonight, I 21 requested that it be carried. Because I'd also 22 like to discuss the matter for a potential global 23 resolution. 24 We have discussed with them that they 25 may have to come in another time for a further  12 1 hardship, but that might not be necessary. So 2 that's -- 3 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Is this the gentleman 4 that did the case for himself? 5 MR. MAROTTA: Yes. 6 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Okay. 7 MR. MAROTTA: Therefore, that leaves us 8 with 218 New York Avenue, Apartment Number 10. 9 Mr. Lopez is here and with his client. 10 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Let the record show 11 that Commissioner Holguin has now joined the 12 proceedings. 13 MR. MAROTTA: Just to let you know, we 14 had the reorganization of the board. And, again, 15 Chairman Milan and Vice Chair Vasquez have been 16 appointed. 17 COMMISSIONER HOLGUIN: Great. 18 MR. MAROTTA: So as we left off at the 19 last meeting, there was a question whether or not 20 the property owner had received the notice of 21 determination that was sent out in 2019, if you 22 recall. And the board had requested that a 23 representative of the property owner come forward 24 and testify or answer any questions that are 25 necessary. I'm going to let counsel go, both  13 1 explain where they believe this is at in their own 2 words. 3 MR. LOPEZ: The only thing I would like 4 to clarify is that we had determined that no 5 certified mail was ever sent to the property owner 6 and that the decision was sent merely by regular 7 mail. 8 MR. MAROTTA: I believe that the record 9 will reflect that, yes. 10 MR. LOPEZ: You believe it will reflect 11 it or the record does reflect that? 12 MR. MAROTTA: That's my recollection of 13 what the record said. 14 MR. LOPEZ: All right. So my client is 15 here. The chairman indicated that he had some 16 questions for my client. 17 MR. MAROTTA: Correct. 18 MR. LOPEZ: My client is here, he's 19 ready to be sworn. 20 21 C H R I S T O P H E R Y E G E N, after having 22 been duly sworn or affirmed, did testify as 23 follows: 24 25 MR. LOPEZ: What's your position with  14 1 218 NY Ave, LP, Chris? 2 MR. YEGEN: I'm one of the owners. 3 MR. LOPEZ: Managing partners? 4 MR. YEGEN: Yeah. 5 MR. MAROTTA: If I could interject, I 6 just want to confirm we do not need the 7 interpreter. 8 MR. NG: You can stay or you can go. 9 MR. MARTINEZ: I'll stay for a little 10 while. 11 MR. MAROTTA: Sorry, please proceed. 12 MR. LOPEZ: In that position, you are 13 familiar with the operation of this limited 14 partnership? 15 MR. YEGEN: I am. 16 MR. LOPEZ: There was a decision entered 17 by the rent leveling office dated October 28, 18 2019, which has been previously marked as A-1 and 19 the 12/11/23 date was the date of the last 20 meeting. Are you familiar with this notice? 21 MR. YEGEN: I have seen it only in 22 regards to the lawsuit brought by the tenant -- 23 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 24 MR. YEGEN: -- Ms. Suarez. 25 MR. LOPEZ: Just for the record, Ms.  15 1 Suarez filed a lawsuit in Superior Court alleging 2 a rent over charge; is that correct? 3 MR. YEGEN: Yes, it is. 4 MR. LOPEZ: And as part of that court 5 case and court proceedings related to that case, 6 you became aware of what is shown here as A-1; is 7 that correct? 8 MR. YEGEN: Yes, that's correct. 9 MR. LOPEZ: There was a -- at the last 10 meeting, the issue came up that the amount 11 reflected on A-1, on this notice as the rent being 12 $473.46 was included in the December 2019 13 registration of the property. And they wanted 14 some clarification of that. 15 The assumption of the tenant advocate is 16 that you would have received notice by that date, 17 by the December 2019 filing. And so I think 18 that's where they wanted to ask you for some 19 clarification. Is that something that you 20 yourself carry out? 21 MR. YEGEN: The filing of the rent 22 registrations? 23 MR. LOPEZ: Yes. 24 MR. YEGEN: No, I haven't done that for 25 many years.  16 1 MR. LOPEZ: Is there someone in your 2 office that does these -- the routine 3 recordkeeping items for the limited partnership? 4 MR. YEGEN: Yes, there is. 5 MR. LOPEZ: And after I brought up the 6 issue to you, did you try to find out how it is 7 that you first -- that the company first received 8 notice -- obtained notice that this determination 9 had been entered by the rent leveling office? 10 MR. YEGEN: I believe our employee who 11 went into Union City rent control to file the rent 12 registration statement was told that there was an 13 issue with the legal rent for apartment 10. And I 14 believe received a call had from Nilda, who was in 15 the rent control office, about it, telling me that 16 the legal rent was lower than what was on the rent 17 registration statement. 18 MR. LOPEZ: Than what was on the 19 proposed rent registration; is that correct? 20 MR. YEGEN: Yes. 21 MR. LOPEZ: And as a result of the 22 information that you were given -- not you 23 actually, but as a result of the information, your 24 employee, the one who handles this, did he then 25 make the corrections to the December 2019 rent  17 1 registration statement? 2 MR. YEGEN: Yes, he did. 3 MR. LOPEZ: And is that what was filed 4 in, as best as you -- understanding that you 5 didn't do the filing, that would have been the 6 figure that was included at that point; is that 7 correct? 8 MR. YEGEN: To the best of my knowledge, 9 yes. 10 MR. LOPEZ: I have nothing else. There 11 are questions, obviously. 12 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Do you have anything? 13 MS. RIVERA: I do. 14 Mr. Yegen, whose responsible in the LLC 15 for preparing the leases? 16 MR. YEGEN: Preparing the leases? 17 Usually, it's our manager. 18 MS. RIVERA: Okay. And what about 19 notice for rent increase? 20 MR. YEGEN: We have somebody in our 21 office who handles that. 22 MS. RIVERA: And so I'm going to show 23 you what I'm going to mark -- do I have any 24 marked? 25 MR. MAROTTA: I don't think you did.  18 1 MS. RIVERA: T-1. Do you recognize 2 that? 3 MR. YEGEN: Yes. It looks like one of 4 our leases. 5 MS. RIVERA: Okay. And that's for Ms. 6 Suarez? 7 MR. YEGEN: Um-hum. 8 MS. RIVERA: What is the date of that 9 lease and when does it begin the tenancy? 10 MR. YEGEN: August 1, 2016. 11 MS. RIVERA: Okay. And what is the 12 initial rent? 13 MR. YEGEN: $1,400. 14 MS. RIVERA: Okay. So the rent 15 registrations were done every January, right? If 16 we look through -- 17 MR. YEGEN: I believe so. 18 MR. LOPEZ: They were effective in 19 January, they would have been done in December. 20 MS. RIVERA: Okay. Last registration 21 date looks like the date of this received is 22 January 30th, 2018. 23 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 24 MS. RIVERA: Okay. I'm going mark this 25 T-2.  19 1 MR. LOPEZ: We can agree that if it was 2 done at a different date, the subsequent 3 registration would need to be 12 months later. 4 MS. RIVERA: Right, okay. So for the 5 one -- 6 MR. MAROTTA: If I may interject? Did 7 you give a description of what T-1 was? 8 MS. RIVERA: T-1 is the lease. 9 MR. LOPEZ: The original lease with Ms. 10 Suarez. 11 MR. MAROTTA: Thank you. 12 MS. RIVERA: So T-2, we have a 13 January 25, 2018, rent registration. Do you 14 recognize this document? That's page two -- 15 MR. LOPEZ: What date did you say? 16 MS. RIVERA: January 25, 2018, is what 17 is at the top. 18 MR. YEGEN: It looks like our 19 registration statement. 20 MS. RIVERA: Okay. And so Ms. Suarez's 21 apartment is reflected as what in terms of rent 22 amount? 23 MR. YEGEN: $551.22. 24 MS. RIVERA: So then we go to the next 25 year, 2019, and I'm going to mark this T-3. It's  20 1 a two page -- 2 MR. LOPEZ: Let's just mark the one, 3 it's the same. 4 MS. RIVERA: So what is Ms. Suarez's 5 rent reflected as? 6 MR. YEGEN: $560.04. 7 MS. RIVERA: So you would agree that 8 that would have the CPI increase, right -- 9 MR. YEGEN: Correct. 10 MS. RIVERA: -- for the following year. 11 Okay. And this is still before she filed her 12 inquiry with the rent control office? 13 MR. YEGEN: Correct. 14 MS. RIVERA: So now we go to the one 15 that would have been done on January 23, 2020, I'm 16 going to mark this T-4. What is it reflected 17 there, her rent? 18 MR. YEGEN: $483.88. 19 MS. RIVERA: Before that, right, because 20 you were reading from the cover, it would be -- 21 MR. LOPEZ: Are you asking for what base 22 rent as opposed to total rent? 23 MS. RIVERA: Base rent. 24 MR. YEGEN: $473.46. 25 MS. RIVERA: Now, you would agree that  21 1 that's less than the preceding year, right? 2 MR. YEGEN: Yes. 3 MS. RIVERA: Okay. And it's exactly the 4 same amount as reflected in the notice that was 5 October of 2019, right? 6 MR. YEGEN: Yes. As I indicated, we 7 were told to change it. 8 MS. RIVERA: Okay. And so that would 9 be -- okay. So you're telling me and the board 10 that they were corrected at the time of 11 registration that this was the rent? 12 MR. YEGEN: Correct. 13 MS. RIVERA: Okay. And clearly it's 14 less than what was registered the preceding year? 15 MR. YEGEN: Yes. 16 MS. RIVERA: And it's certainly less 17 than the rent that's reflected on her lease? 18 MR. YEGEN: Yes. 19 MS. RIVERA: The person that works for 20 you doesn't go back and say, hey, there's a 21 different number, they lowered the rent? I mean 22 there's no communication with you and the employee 23 that goes and does the rent registration? 24 MR. YEGEN: Well, he would have told us 25 in December.  22 1 MS. RIVERA: Right. So that would be 2 two months after the letter was dated, right? 3 MR. LOPEZ: Three months. 4 MS. RIVERA: Three months. 5 MR. LOPEZ: According to your document. 6 MS. RIVERA: Three months, we were using 7 December. 8 MR. LOPEZ: Right. 9 MS. RIVERA: But January is certainly 10 three months after you would have received that 11 letter? 12 MR. YEGEN: Correct. 13 MR. LOPEZ: Wait, wait, I object to the 14 form of the question. You're saying that he would 15 have received the letter, that has not been 16 established. 17 MS. RIVERA: Okay. But I'm -- 18 MR. LOPEZ: When the notice was 19 allegedly sent by the rent leveling office. 20 MS. RIVERA: Correct. 21 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 22 MS. RIVERA: It's three months later, 23 right? And -- 24 MR. LOPEZ: Let him answer that. 25 MS. RIVERA: Okay.  23 1 MR. LOPEZ: Do you agree that that 2 registration was done three months after the -- 3 approximately three months after the letter dated 4 October 28, 2019, which has been marked as A-1? 5 MR. YEGEN: It looks to be about 6 three months. 7 MS. RIVERA: Yeah, it's the same rent 8 amount that's reflected on that letter. 9 MR. LOPEZ: That's been asked and 10 answered. 11 MS. RIVERA: Right, so he can reiterate, 12 right, for the purposes of clarity. 13 MR. LOPEZ: He's answered and 14 acknowledged. 15 MS. RIVERA: No, you've answered. 16 MR. LOPEZ: No, he answered. 17 MS. RIVERA: Let's hear it from him. 18 MR. YEGEN: Yes. 19 MS. RIVERA: Okay. So let's go back to 20 T-4. So the base rent is 473, but with the 21 allowed increase it went up to 483.88, right, 22 that's what it says here on the form? 23 MR. YEGEN: Yes. 24 MS. RIVERA: Okay. And no one went back 25 and said, hey, this a different number, they  24 1 lowered the -- your employee doesn't go back and 2 tell you there's a different number reflected? 3 MR. LOPEZ: We explained that last 4 time -- 5 MS. RIVERA: I'm -- 6 MR. LOPEZ: -- that we were involved in 7 litigation. 8 MS. RIVERA: I'm asking the client. 9 MR. LOPEZ: All right. 10 MS. RIVERA: Can you answer, please? 11 MR. YEGEN: Sure. We received notice in 12 the form of litigation papers from the tenant. 13 MS. RIVERA: Okay. But when your 14 employee went back, they don't converse with you 15 about what they fill out and what they do? 16 MR. YEGEN: He told us, but we didn't 17 receive any documentation. 18 MS. RIVERA: You didn't call and 19 inquire? 20 MR. YEGEN: I said we did hear from the 21 rent control board. 22 MS. RIVERA: Well, now, part of this 23 litigation. I'm talking about back in 2020, 24 receiving and communicating with your employee 25 that there was a change?  25 1 MR. LOPEZ: Counsel, what's your point? 2 MS. RIVERA: I'm getting -- 3 MR. LOPEZ: If at that point, we're way 4 beyond the time to do any type of appeal? 5 MS. RIVERA: I didn't interrupt you -- 6 MR. LOPEZ: I'd like to -- 7 MS. RIVERA: Please give me -- 8 MR. LOPEZ: I want to know where you're 9 going with this. 10 MS. RIVERA: We'll get there. 11 MR. MAROTTA: Mr. Lopez, if you have an 12 objection, by all means state it. But I don't 13 see -- 14 MR. LOPEZ: My objection is that it's -- 15 all this is clear. She's saying that the first 16 notice from what it appears from the testimony in 17 the documents is three months later. At that -- 18 what are we doing at that point? 19 MS. RIVERA: The question is you didn't 20 inquire with the rent control office and say, hey, 21 why did this change? 22 MR. LOPEZ: We're beyond the time to do 23 any -- 24 MS. RIVERA: I'm sorry, if you're going 25 to give testimony, maybe we should put you under  26 1 oath -- 2 MR. LOPEZ: I'm not -- 3 MS. RIVERA: I'm asking -- 4 MR. LOPEZ: If you'd like to put me on, 5 I'll gladly -- 6 MS. RIVERA: I'm asking your client. 7 MR. LOPEZ: -- testify. 8 MS. RIVERA: I'm not asking you. I want 9 to -- 10 MR. LOPEZ: I understand. 11 MS. RIVERA: If you want to put your 12 objection -- 13 MR. LOPEZ: My objection -- 14 MS. RIVERA: Please don't be 15 inconsiderate and interrupt me when I'm speaking 16 to -- when I'm asking your client questions. 17 MR. LOPEZ: My objection is that at that 18 point, it makes absolutely no difference. So your 19 question is totally irrelevant. 20 MS. RIVERA: That's for the board to 21 decide, not you. 22 MR. LOPEZ: We're 90 days beyond the 23 time. 24 MS. RIVERA: That is -- 25 MR. LOPEZ: Your ordinance says you have  27 1 30 days to appeal. The notice says you have 2 10 days to appeal. And now we are 90 days out. 3 MS. RIVERA: Okay. 4 MR. LOPEZ: Where is the relevance of -- 5 MS. RIVERA: So what -- 6 MR. LOPEZ: -- your question. 7 MS. RIVERA: I'm asking him to -- 8 MR. MAROTTA: The objection is stated 9 for the record. I'd like to proceed. 10 MS. RIVERA: So, again, I'm going to 11 repeat my question. When you get -- when your 12 employee goes and registers this rent in 13 January 2020 or December of 2019, they don't go 14 back and tell you, hey, there's something 15 different on this? They told me that the rent was 16 reduced? They don't have a question -- 17 conversation with you? You don't have a 18 conversation with your employee? 19 MR. YEGEN: Yes, I talked to the 20 employee. I also talked to rent control. 21 MS. RIVERA: Okay. 22 MR. YEGEN: As I indicated, I spoke to 23 Nilda about it. 24 MS. RIVERA: Okay. And so I'm going to 25 now mark T-5. I'm going to show this to you,  28 1 that's a notice of rent increase. Do you 2 recognize that document? 3 MR. YEGEN: Looks like our standard rent 4 increase. 5 MS. RIVERA: Okay. And what is the rent 6 increased to? 7 MR. YEGEN: $483.88. 8 MS. RIVERA: Okay. Now, is that the 9 same figure that's reflected on that same 10 registration statement showing the new rent at 11 483.88? 12 MR. YEGEN: I believe so. 13 MS. RIVERA: Okay. 14 MR. MAROTTA: What's the date of that 15 notice? 16 MR. YEGEN: January 23, 2020. 17 MS. RIVERA: January 23, 2020, which is 18 consistent with the registration statement, right? 19 MR. YEGEN: Yes. 20 MS. RIVERA: Okay. So you then had 21 notice that there was a determination of rent that 22 was lower than what you had been charging. And 23 you based your rent increase on that same figure, 24 adding the exact same figure of the new rent 25 amount, right?  29 1 MR. YEGEN: Correct. 2 MS. RIVERA: Okay. So that clearly 3 doesn't reflect that you just got notice of this 4 amount upon this litigation? 5 MR. LOPEZ: Objection to the question. 6 MS. RIVERA: Okay. I'm asking -- 7 MR. LOPEZ: I need you to clarify it 8 because he's not saying that -- he's already 9 testified as to when he received the notice as 10 part of the filing of T-4 around January of 2020. 11 MR. MAROTTA: I'm not sure if he 12 testified when he got notice of it. I believe he 13 testified that he got notice of it. He spoke with 14 his employee and he spoke with Nilda, but I don't 15 recall any discussion as to when that occurred. 16 MR. LOPEZ: I think it was pretty clear 17 that his testimony was that as a result of his 18 employee being told on the filing of T-4, sometime 19 in January of 2020 is when he received notice. 20 MR. MAROTTA: I just don't recall that 21 that date was stated. 22 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 23 MS. RIVERA: So now, I ask the court 24 reporter can you read back the first question -- 25 when we go back to when he got notice of the  30 1 increase? Are you able to do that? 2 THE COURT REPORTER: No. 3 MS. RIVERA: I believe your testimony at 4 the beginning was that you actually got notice of 5 this upon the filing of the litigation, right, in 6 2023? 7 MR. YEGEN: I don't remember when that 8 was. 9 MS. RIVERA: Okay. Well, I have nothing 10 further. 11 MR. MAROTTA: Okay. Adolfo? 12 MR. LOPEZ: I actually have a question. 13 So, Chris, is it fair to say that the 14 adjustments made to the rent leveling registration 15 of January of 2020 were the result of a 16 notification that was given to you by -- you 17 indicated Nilda -- that's Nilda Mercado, correct? 18 MR. YEGEN: Yes. 19 MR. LOPEZ: At the time, she was the 20 secretary of the rent leveling office; is that 21 correct? 22 MR. YEGEN: Yes. 23 MR. LOPEZ: And is it correct to say 24 that the modifications to T-4, which is the 25 January 2020 registration, were the result of  31 1 information that Nilda gave you when you called to 2 inquire? 3 MR. YEGEN: Well, she called me 4 actually. 5 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 6 MR. YEGEN: After she spoke to my 7 employee. 8 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. And that's how you 9 received the notice? 10 MR. YEGEN: Yes. 11 MS. RIVERA: I have nothing. 12 MR. MAROTTA: Okay. Anybody? 13 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Do you recollect or do 14 you have anything in your file that shows that you 15 got anything prior to that conversation with Ms. 16 Mercado? 17 MR. YEGEN: No. 18 MR. MAROTTA: I'm going to ask a 19 question that I don't think -- 20 MR. LOPEZ: Wait a minute, why are you 21 asking questions? 22 MR. MAROTTA: Because I can ask 23 questions. I ask questions very often. 24 MR. LOPEZ: You're here -- 25 MR. MAROTTA: I'll let my chairman, if  32 1 he has any questions for me, we'll -- 2 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. 3 MR. MAROTTA: We'll keep a procedure. 4 MR. LOPEZ: Yes, let's do this -- 5 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Okay. So -- again, 6 let's ensure we're getting right the time table. 7 In October 2019, there's an increase, you hear 8 about it in December by a call from Ms. Mercado? 9 MR. LOPEZ: Just to clarify. 10 MR. MAROTTA: Decrease. 11 MR. LOPEZ: Your question is -- 12 CHAIRMAN MILAN: A change. 13 MR. LOPEZ: There was a determination. 14 CHAIRMAN MILAN: A determination, let's 15 put it that way. You have a determination at that 16 point in December and the first you hear about it 17 is through a phone call from Ms. Mercado, she 18 calls you, almost out of the blue? You haven't 19 put in your rent registration yet? 20 MR. LOPEZ: I object to the question. 21 MR. MAROTTA: Okay. 22 MR. LOPEZ: It doesn't properly reflect 23 the facts as have been testified to. 24 CHAIRMAN MILAN: I'm trying to clarify 25 the facts as they've been testified.  33 1 MR. LOPEZ: But you indicated that -- 2 your question said that he got a phone out of the 3 blue from Ms. Mercado. That wasn't his testimony. 4 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Okay. He got a phone 5 call from Ms. Mercado -- 6 MR. LOPEZ: After his employee tried to 7 record the registrations. 8 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Is that the order of 9 things? I did not hear that order -- 10 MR. MAROTTA: I didn't hear that. 11 CHAIRMAN MILAN: -- when he testified. 12 MR. MAROTTA: That it was after. 13 CHAIRMAN MILAN: That's I why I'm -- 14 MR. LOPEZ: I think we need to pay 15 attention then. 16 CHAIRMAN MILAN: It could be. But in 17 any case, is that the order that you recall or 18 has been proposed by your lawyer now? 19 MR. YEGEN: To the best of my knowledge, 20 that's what I said earlier, yes. 21 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Okay. So you're 22 stating then that you sent your employee to put in 23 a rent registration -- 24 MR. LOPEZ: That's not what the 25 testimony was, Mr. Chairman. The testimony was  34 1 that that's not among his duties with this 2 company. And that the employee goes as a matter 3 of course because that's what they do as part of 4 the job. 5 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Fine. 6 MR. LOPEZ: So they didn't send the 7 employee anywhere. The employee went on his own 8 was the testimony. This needs to be clear, I need 9 to establish a clear record. We can't just jump 10 around on the facts. 11 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Okay. So he goes when 12 December? 13 MR. LOPEZ: Well, according to this -- 14 MR. MAROTTA: Objection. 15 MS. RIVERA: I'm going to object. 16 MR. MAROTTA: Adolfo, the question was 17 put to your client. Please let him answer. 18 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. So -- 19 MR. MAROTTA: Please let him answer. 20 MR. LOPEZ: Do you need to refer to the 21 documents as to when he went? 22 MR. YEGEN: It was filed in January of 23 2020, he would have gone in January of 2020. 24 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Okay. But you said 25 before that he was asked or he was told that there  35 1 was a change. I'm assuming he goes there and goes 2 with a form, usually you don't fill it on the fly 3 at the office, I would think, you probably come 4 from your office with it. So he gets told by Ms. 5 Mercado or one of the other members of the staff. 6 MR. NG: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe 7 that Nilda was working, she was retired already 8 the date they are mentioning. 9 CHAIRMAN MILAN: I'm not so sure. I 10 think it's close to call, but I don't know if I 11 have the recollection to be honest. You need to 12 check your records to make sure. 13 MR. NG: Do you remember when Nilda 14 retired? I just want to be sure. 15 MR. NUNEZ: If I answer that, I got -- I 16 don't -- 17 MR. MAROTTA: If we can have Mr. Nunez 18 sworn in. 19 MR. NUNEZ: I don't have the exact. 20 MR. MAROTTA: I will say she was not 21 retired yet. 22 CHAIRMAN MILAN: I don't know if she was 23 retired officially. I don't know if she was not 24 working because she was sick at that point. Now, 25 you have to check probably the records and that is  36 1 not probably something you can do easily now at 2 this hour. But I know that she was out quite a 3 lot at the end because of a lot of respiratory 4 issues, but that was it. I don't know if she was 5 officially retired or if she was coming -- 6 MR. NG: I know she retired before 7 Covid. 8 CHAIRMAN MILAN: So we know it's before 9 March 2020, but it's like kind of you need -- we 10 need to check the date exactly, if we're going to 11 go down that path. But, again, let me go back to 12 where we were. In January, your employee goes or 13 the firm's employee goes and assuming he goes with 14 one of these forms then to hand it in. He's told 15 sorry, you should have received a notice in 16 October. And, you know, that's no longer the 17 number, this is the number. I'm guessing he goes 18 back. He must have spoken to you guys or to 19 somebody prior to Nilda's call, that if we have an 20 alleged call from her around January 2020. 21 The question then becomes didn't your 22 employee tell you when they went back, before even 23 Nilda calls, hi, this is -- there's a problem 24 here? 25 MR. YEGEN: Yes.  37 1 CHAIRMAN MILAN: He did? 2 MR. YEGEN: Yes. 3 CHAIRMAN MILAN: He did. And what 4 action did you take? You're saying Nilda called 5 you -- I kind of would have expected it the other 6 way around, I would have reached for the phone and 7 said what are you talking about. But okay. 8 MR. YEGEN: We would have had him redo 9 the form. 10 CHAIRMAN MILAN: And that was it? 11 MR. YEGEN: That was it. 12 CHAIRMAN MILAN: No questions for the 13 administrators of why didn't I get this? Why -- 14 MR. YEGEN: I'm sure. 15 CHAIRMAN MILAN: -- I would like to 16 argue this because this is not what we understood 17 and we have never heard anything about it. 18 MR. YEGEN: I certainly asked Nilda if 19 that was a possibility, yes. 20 CHAIRMAN MILAN: But you're saying that 21 only happened because she called you? 22 MR. YEGEN: No. 23 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Okay. So did you call 24 her then before she called you? Or did you speak 25 to any of the other administrators?  38 1 MR. YEGEN: Maybe I called her and 2 somebody called me back. 3 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Okay. 4 VICE CHAIRPERSON VASQUEZ: Because Nilda 5 wasn't working by -- 6 CHAIRMAN MILAN: By 2020, she was gone 7 to be honest. 8 MR. MAROTTA: '19, she was still there. 9 2020, she was gone. 10 CHAIRMAN MILAN: I think she left late 11 in -- that's why I was saying December before 12 because I figured that conversation had taken 13 place -- 14 MR. MAROTTA: We need clarification. 15 CHAIRMAN MILAN: I don't have the exact 16 date in my mind of when she left. 17 MR. NG: I know when she retired, she 18 was not in the office. She as out. 19 CHAIRMAN MILAN: No, I know she had been 20 out for awhile. 21 MR. NG: It was a little confusion then. 22 CHAIRMAN MILAN: And it wasn't Nilda, it 23 was somebody else, maybe we can even do testimony 24 today, but okay. You have some questions? 25 VICE CHAIRPERSON VASQUEZ: No. I just  39 1 don't recall that Nilda was here in 2020, in 2 January. 3 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Okay. 4 VICE CHAIRPERSON VASQUEZ: I don't think 5 so. 6 MR. YEGEN: It might have been somebody 7 else. 8 VICE CHAIRPERSON VASQUEZ: But is that 9 the procedure that you guys have, if it wasn't 10 Nilda, did somebody -- 11 MR. NG: Usually, the secretary -- 12 MR. MAROTTA: I'm going to ask you to be 13 sworn. 14 15 K E N N E D Y N G, after having been duly sworn 16 or affirmed, did testify as follows: 17 18 MR. NG: Kennedy, Ng, N-G, I'm the 19 administrator of the rent control. 20 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Go ahead. 21 MR. NG: Usually, the secretary calls 22 tenants or sometimes lawyers, the people involved. 23 So that's why I was asking before if Nilda that 24 called or someone else. 25 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Or another --  40 1 MR. NG: But I believe she retired 2 probably 2019, late. 3 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Okay, November, 4 December, something like that. Okay. I get it, 5 but we don't have the exact date. I don't want to 6 rely on that. 7 But you're saying that it could be 8 procedure that Nilda or somebody will call -- 9 MR. NG: Of course. 10 CHAIRMAN MILAN: -- somebody and say 11 that. It still brings out like why wouldn't you 12 guys have called to at least complain that you 13 didn't receive the letter? I'm not sure if you 14 remember why that wouldn't have happened, but 15 okay. 16 MR. YEGEN: I did call her is what I 17 testified. 18 CHAIRMAN MILAN: But then you told us 19 that the call was actually done by her. 20 MR. YEGEN: Well, I believe I may have 21 left a message and she called me back. But my 22 recollection is somebody from the office called me 23 about the issue. And, yes, I asked why this was 24 the case. Especially when we had done a ton of 25 work in the apartment, made it brand new. And was  41 1 there an opportunity to appeal and she said yes. 2 And you're likely to lose. 3 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Okay. 4 MR. MAROTTA: Okay. 5 CHAIRMAN MILAN: It is what it is. I 6 mean if you have any questions, I'll give you, as 7 our counsel, the opportunity to ask them in order 8 to clarify for the perspectives of the board 9 members. 10 MR. MAROTTA: My only question was do 11 you recall when your employee may have spoken to 12 her originally? 13 MR. YEGEN: I don't know if he spoke to 14 her, I don't know who he spoke to there, but it 15 would have been in January -- 16 MR. MAROTTA: Okay. 17 MR. YEGEN: -- of 2020. 18 MR. MAROTTA: Okay. I have nothing 19 further. 20 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Either of counsel have 21 anything else to add at the end? 22 MR. LOPEZ: No. 23 MS. RIVERA: No. 24 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Okay. I make a motion 25 that we close testimony and go into deliberation.  42 1 MR. NG: Motion was made by chairman, 2 Mr. Milan. I need a second. 3 COMMISSIONER COLON: I second it. 4 MR. NG: Second by Commissioner Rosana 5 Colon. Roll call. 6 Commissioner Ydaly Pozo. 7 COMMISSIONER POZO: Yes. 8 MR. NG: Commissioner Yamirus Holguin. 9 COMMISSIONER HOLGUIN: Yes. 10 MR. NG: Commissioner Vice Chairman 11 Sandra Vasquez. 12 VICE CHAIRPERSON VASQUEZ: Yes. 13 MR. NG: Commissioner Rosana Colon. 14 COMMISSIONER COLON: Yes. 15 MR. NG: Chairman Juan Milan. 16 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Yes. 17 MR. NG: Motion has passed. 18 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Okay. Let me try 19 framing a little bit here. I think by looking at 20 the testimony of Mr. Yegen, he's saying that 21 basically someone spoke, they're not really 22 100 percent sure it was Ms. Mercado or somebody 23 else in the office. But the person said, yeah, 24 you can appeal. The appeal was never made. 25 I mean it could have been that we would  43 1 have said no, you're past the 30 days or whatever, 2 and gone forward. But we also could have said 3 they never got the letter, this didn't happen, 4 they have a right to appeal, even though it's gone 5 past the date. The date is a set number, it's 6 definitely something that we look at, but if it 7 was an error on the part of a -- a very obvious 8 error on the part of the administrators, we could 9 consider. And I think the answer from whoever 10 answered, possibly Nilda, possibly somebody else, 11 you're likely to lose, but if you want to go that 12 way, go ahead. You're likely to lose because the 13 date is pretty much set in the ordinance, but 14 there could be something that you could see is 15 violating it, beyond that letter. And even the 16 spirit of the ordinance that may say you have to 17 look at this one different, this case different 18 because they didn't take into account these things 19 when they did the notification or they send the 20 notification to an address in Timbuktu, and the 21 owner doesn't live there. Something like that can 22 happen and it could be looked at. That was not 23 even explored. They just changed the number and 24 put it down and went on. 25 So at that point, I think they are --  44 1 it's almost like when you go in front of a judge, 2 like in this court, and they ask you, you realize 3 that if you plead guilty, we won't throw the book 4 at you, but you're waiving your right to certain 5 things here. By not proceeding, they were waiving 6 their possibility of having that case looked at 7 and possibly said, look, this is one of those 8 anomalies where we cannot follow the straight 9 number that it says in the ordinance because there 10 are all these factors that are doing it. Were 11 there those factors? I'm not sure. I don't think 12 so, but I'm not sure because the case was never 13 brought up in that way at that time. Maybe at 14 that point, we would have found something that we 15 could have said, hey, this was not sent to the 16 right place, this was not -- I mean something 17 could have come up by the freshness of the date, 18 something might have been found that, by now, we 19 see the testimony of the managing agent seems to 20 be a little bit fuzzy because it's been 21 four years. My mind would also be pretty fuzzy if 22 you started asking me what I was doing in January 23 of 2020. 24 So if they have come at that point, it 25 would have been a lot fresher. And it could have  45 1 pointed to this is where you guys made the mistake 2 and we can't really abide by the letter of the 3 ordinance in this 30 days because the person was 4 really not given those 30 days to present their 5 case. Because you sent it, you know, all the way 6 to Antarctica, that's it. 7 So based on that, on the fact that they 8 didn't pursue that option, I'm saying they were 9 relinquishing their right to have it explored in 10 an expeditious way that could have still looked at 11 it in the light of the ordinance and in the light 12 of what could have gone wrong in this particular 13 case. Given that, I would say I have no choice 14 but to uphold the decision of the administrative 15 staff. I mean, again, please, feel free to go 16 against it and tell me your points or agree and 17 tell me why. We all have to -- 18 MR. MAROTTA: The only thing that has to 19 be addressed further is the fact that there was a 20 lease submitted during this process, during -- and 21 it fell under the determination of vacancy 22 decontrol. So I believe that there was a 23 recalculation done in October of 2023, based upon 24 that lease that was submitted from Mr. Lopez's 25 office. And the board has addressed issues  46 1 concerning the vacancy decontrol and prior 2 determinations because this is not the only case 3 where that has arisen, since the determination by 4 the board to address vacancy decontrol. So there 5 is a regulation that was adopted by this board 6 that is part of the packet. So I'm going to 7 request that you consider that regulation that was 8 adopted by the board and incorporate that into 9 your decision. 10 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Let me look at it again 11 to refresh. Leases entered into during the 12 vacancy decontrol period presented for the purpose 13 of obtaining a current legal rent calculation 14 shall not apply to a tenant who previously 15 received the legal rent calculation. And leases 16 entered into the during the vacancy decontrol 17 presented for the purpose of obtaining a legal 18 rent calculation shall not apply to a tenant who 19 previously received a legal rent calculation or 20 whose rent is lower than that which will result 21 from a legal rent calculation based upon a lease 22 entered into during the vacancy decontrol period. 23 The prior legal rent calculation or rent the 24 tenant is paying shall continue in effect for the 25 tenant. A new legal rent calculation based on a  47 1 lease entered into during the period vacancy 2 decontrol was in effect may apply to the unit 3 after the tenant vacates the unit. 4 Okay. In this case, I guess the lease 5 was done on what day was it -- 6 MR. MAROTTA: I think in 2012. 7 MR. LOPEZ: The lease was 2010. 8 MR. MAROTTA: 2010. 9 MR. LOPEZ: December 2010. 10 MR. MAROTTA: Yes. 11 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Okay. 12 MR. LOPEZ: Which established -- it was 13 during the vacancy decontrol period and it 14 established the rent at $1,300. 15 MS. RIVERA: However, not raised until 16 three years after the letter of determination. 17 MR. LOPEZ: No. We're talking about the 18 lease -- 19 MS. RIVERA: That lease came up now in 20 this matter. In August of 2020, when you -- 21 MR. LOPEZ: No, no, the lease, what's 22 been marked as A-3 was the lease during the 23 vacancy decontrol period and called for a rent of 24 $1,300 a month. And that's what was being charged 25 to the tenant.  48 1 MS. RIVERA: Correct. However, that 2 lease never made its way into the proceedings, 3 certainly not in 2019, when the original 4 determination was made at that 473 number and 5 wasn't raised until three years later as a 6 defense. So -- 7 MR. LOPEZ: It wasn't -- there's no 8 reason to raise it as a defense. The ordinance 9 provided for it. You don't need to raise it with 10 anyone. That's the legal rent. 11 MS. RIVERA: Again, he could have done 12 that back in January of 2020 -- 13 MR. LOPEZ: And he could have done it 14 now. 15 MS. RIVERA: I disagree with that, that 16 it's now -- 17 MR. LOPEZ: If the purpose is to find 18 the correct rental determination at that time, we 19 would agree that the rent leveling office did not 20 have all of the information. They basically 21 pulled the number out of a hat -- 22 MR. MAROTTA: I don't think that's a 23 proper characterization. 24 MR. LOPEZ: Well, but the unit was 25 subject to vacancy decontrol by the ordinance  49 1 since 2010. 2 MS. RIVERA: In order for the board to 3 have recognized -- and this was determined by the 4 board -- that a lease -- 5 MR. LOPEZ: Not the board. 6 MS. RIVERA: I'm not talking about in 7 this matter. This board has previously ruled that 8 this has to be done within a certain period of 9 time and not three years later. And I'm not -- 10 I'm characterizing a generalization of the board's 11 decision in prior matters, that to raise this 12 issue of vacancy decontrol three years after the 13 fact is not consistent with what the board has 14 ruled in the past. 15 MR. LOPEZ: But we were involved with 16 litigation, it was being proved -- and as a matter 17 of fact, a judge ruled in our favor. 18 MS. RIVERA: Okay. But again, back in 19 2020, when he was confronted with the new lower 20 rent at 473, he very well could have said, hey, 21 wait a second, I have this lease -- 22 MR. LOPEZ: That's what the chairman 23 just said. We are beyond the time -- and this is 24 where I need a clarification from your proposed 25 ruling. Where in the ordinance does the board  50 1 have the right to expand the time frames 2 indicated? There are certain deadlines set forth 3 by the ordinance. This board needs to follow 4 those deadlines, does it not? 5 MR. MAROTTA: Correct. 6 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 7 MR. MAROTTA: But this board has already 8 considered matters and the office has presented 9 matters where there's been an issue of service and 10 if there has been no service, the board had 11 considered that. 12 MR. LOPEZ: Not in this case, Mr. 13 Marotta. 14 MR. MAROTTA: We don't know in this 15 case. 16 MR. LOPEZ: Certainly the rent leveling 17 office could have issued a new notice and said 18 since you didn't get the old notice, we're 19 expanding your time -- 20 MR. MAROTTA: There was no testimony 21 that I didn't get this notice in time. The 22 testimony was that you have the wrong amount, 23 okay. 24 MR. LOPEZ: No, no, please don't 25 mischaracterize the testimony.  51 1 MR. MAROTTA: The board knows what the 2 testimony was. 3 MR. LOPEZ: The board was clear that it 4 was not until January of 2020 that the notice -- 5 that they received notice of the determination. 6 MR. MAROTTA: The board heard testimony, 7 I agree with you, testimony is closed. Let the 8 board -- 9 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 10 MR. MAROTTA: -- trust their 11 recollection. 12 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Based on the clauses 13 that were read into the record from the 14 resolution, is Jessenia Suarez still at all 15 involved with -- 16 MS. RIVERA: Yes. 17 CHAIRMAN MILAN: -- these -- 18 MR. LOPEZ: She's the tenant in the 19 apartment. 20 MS. RIVERA: Currently, she's still the 21 tenant. 22 CHAIRMAN MILAN: So I think that at the 23 very least, we can say that because of the factors 24 in the way our resolution has read, that for her, 25 there can't be a change, that it would have to be  52 1 for a new tenant. That's how I see this looking 2 in terms of this. 3 Now, the second question is given the 4 vacancy decontrol issue, how firm do we keep on 5 the fact that there is a dispute as to whether the 6 landlord received the notification or not. And 7 how much weight do we give that for the new 8 tenant. Forgetting Ms. Suarez, who I think is set 9 at what she is. 10 MR. LOPEZ: Well, for another tenant? 11 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Right. If once she 12 left, you have another tenant, do we go back to 13 the calculation, which the administrators did for 14 assuming vacancy decontrol or do we go to the one 15 that it's being looked at now because that 16 apparently the original one was either not acted 17 upon or was not sent. 18 MR. MAROTTA: I think the resolution 19 sets forth what the step is. 20 CHAIRMAN MILAN: In number two. 21 MR. MAROTTA: Yeah, whatever the lease 22 was. 23 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Is. 24 MR. MAROTTA: Without looking at it, 25 whatever the lease provided during vacancy  53 1 decontrol, that would be the new calculation for a 2 future tenant. 3 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Okay. So given that, I 4 would say for Ms. Suarez, it stays as is. But if 5 she were ever to move, then the calculation which 6 the administrators sent to -- taking into 7 consideration the vacancy decontrol -- will take 8 effect. 9 MR. LOPEZ: When you refer to the 10 calculation, you refer to A-2, the one that was 11 issued December 19, 2022? 12 CHAIRMAN MILAN: December 19, 2022, hang 13 on. Give me a second to get there. 14 MR. LOPEZ: Mr. Chairman, here. 15 CHAIRMAN MILAN: That might be faster 16 than me looking through my pile, yes. 17 So in other words, for Ms. Suarez, it 18 stays as is. But once she's not there, then you 19 have that calculation to go by, based on the 20 resolution and what it says there. That's my 21 proposed motion, but please, if there are 22 disagreements, I know I'm -- I'm really delving 23 into a lot of areas here, so you might have 24 disagreements, so please air them out. Let's get 25 them out there and let's make sure we discuss them  54 1 before we put in a vote. 2 VICE CHAIRPERSON VASQUEZ: What is her 3 current rent? 4 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Her current one? 5 VICE CHAIRPERSON VASQUEZ: Remain the 6 same? 7 CHAIRMAN MILAN: It would stay as is for 8 Ms. Suarez, the latest note that they have sent -- 9 they meaning administrators -- will take effect 10 and go on with that. If she ever leaves that 11 place, then they can go back to the vacancy 12 decontrol calculation, which the administrators 13 previously published, not taking into account that 14 there were all these other issues involved for the 15 current tenant. 16 MR. MAROTTA: I'm just going to phrase 17 the motion, based upon what you stated. 18 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Please. 19 MR. MAROTTA: The motion is to uphold 20 the decision of the rent control office 21 administrator. This shall apply to the current 22 tenant. Upon the current tenant relocating and a 23 new tenant entering the unit, the vacancy 24 decontrol rent with increases, annual increases, 25 shall apply.  55 1 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Yes, that's the motion. 2 VICE CHAIRPERSON VASQUEZ: I'll second 3 that. 4 MR. NG: What is the set amount that Ms. 5 Suarez is paying now? 6 MR. LOPEZ: She's not paying anything. 7 CHAIRMAN MILAN: But what -- 8 MR. MAROTTA: What is the current? 9 MR. LOPEZ: Whatever the calculation is. 10 MS. RIVERA: I think the calculation, 11 the last calculation was 483. 12 MR. MAROTTA: No, I think -- 13 MS. RIVERA: 513.34. 14 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Okay. So that would be 15 as long as Ms. Suarez is the tenant, that's what 16 it would be. 17 MR. MAROTTA: With any other increases. 18 CHAIRMAN MILAN: With any other 19 increases that take place, that continues until 20 she's there. Then after that, after she leaves, 21 then new rent that your staff gave will take over 22 and proper increases. 23 MR. NG: The motion was made by our 24 chairman, Mr. Juan Milan. 25 VICE CHAIRPERSON VASQUEZ: I'll second.  56 1 MR. NG: Seconded by our vice chairman, 2 Commissioner Sandra Vasquez. And we need a roll 3 call. 4 MR. LOPEZ: Before you take a vote, I 5 just want an explanation as to the reasoning -- 6 and I understand what the ruling will be, but I 7 need an explanation because some things I'm not 8 sure of, and so I just want the record to be 9 clear. I understand this board's ruling to be 10 that the determination of October 28, 2019, ruling 11 that the proper rent was 473.46 per month is what 12 you're seeking to uphold? 13 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Um-hum. 14 MR. LOPEZ: And as I understand the 15 ruling is we are not taking into consideration the 16 fact that there was A, no proof -- no certified 17 mailing made of this notice, none has been 18 established, that I can recall. There's no clear 19 indication as to when, if ever, this notice was 20 received. 21 There's no clear indication that the 22 amount was even correct because the rent leveling 23 office was not aware that this apartment had been 24 previously subject to vacancy decontrol. But it 25 seem to be the ruling that because the landlord  57 1 found out approximately three months later that 2 they could have appealed, despite the fact that 3 nobody told them in writing that they could have 4 appealed it at that point, and despite the fact 5 that the ordinance doesn't have any leeway as to 6 the extension of the 30 days to appeal or that the 7 time period indicated on the notice was only 8 10 days. But despite all of that, the ruling is 9 simply because it was entered as that amount, 10 whether it was correct or not, but we are going to 11 affirm it just because the landlord didn't appeal 12 the determination in accordance with the 13 ordinance. 14 MR. MAROTTA: First of all, I'm going to 15 object -- 16 MR. LOPEZ: I'm asking for a 17 clarification. 18 MR. MAROTTA: It's not a clarification, 19 it's you stating what you want it to be. 20 MR. LOPEZ: No, no, no. 21 MR. MAROTTA: It absolutely is. 22 MR. LOPEZ: Well then, if any of the 23 things that I said are incorrect, then I'd like 24 clarification that they're incorrect. 25 MR. MAROTTA: It is absolutely part of  58 1 an argument, it should have been part of the 2 closing. It was -- 3 MR. LOPEZ: There was no closing. 4 MR. MAROTTA: -- part of your opening. 5 MR. LOPEZ: It was part of the case. 6 MR. MAROTTA: It was part of the 7 testimony, your closing from the last hearing. 8 MR. LOPEZ: There was -- 9 MR. MAROTTA: It's already been 10 presented to the board. The board's made a 11 determination. You're trying to lay ground -- 12 MR. LOPEZ: Mr. Marotta, there was no 13 closing ever. It was presented part of my case. 14 I just want -- 15 MR. MAROTTA: Mr. Lopez, you're trying 16 to get the board to determine something based upon 17 what you just stated. 18 MR. LOPEZ: If I am -- 19 MR. MAROTTA: And to adopt your 20 reasoning. That's exactly what you tried to do. 21 MR. LOPEZ: Mr. Marotta, if I am 22 incorrect as to any of the statements, the board 23 can clarify it for me. 24 MR. MAROTTA: The record will speak for 25 itself. The board has already made a motion, you  59 1 requested a clarification, but you prefaced it 2 with the way you want the clarification to be. 3 MR. LOPEZ: Do you want to do it one by 4 one and they can refute any clarification? 5 MR. MAROTTA: That's not necessary to 6 do. 7 MR. LOPEZ: They don't want to give me a 8 clarification? 9 MR. MAROTTA: I'm not saying that. But 10 it's inappropriate what you're trying to do. It's 11 definitely inappropriate to go ahead -- 12 MR. LOPEZ: Mr. Marotta, is it 13 inappropriate to request a clear understanding as 14 to what the ruling is? 15 MR. MAROTTA: Mr. Lopez, you said that 16 the original number was incorrect, the 470 17 something dollars, you haven't prefaced any basis 18 for the original determination. 19 MR. LOPEZ: Mr. Marotta, there was prior 20 evidence submitted that this unit was -- had been 21 subject to vacancy decontrol since 2010. 22 MR. MAROTTA: Not prior to the original 23 determination in October 2019. 24 MR. LOPEZ: Yes, the ordinance -- 25 MR. MAROTTA: Not only that, but the  60 1 registrations themselves show $510, I don't 2 understand that. That wasn't addressed. 3 MR. LOPEZ: Mr. Marotta, the rent 4 control office doesn't -- just because you put it 5 on the rent registration statement, that means 6 absolutely nothing. And we're all pretty aware of 7 that. 8 MR. MAROTTA: That's not correct. 9 MR. LOPEZ: All right. 10 MR. MAROTTA: That's an incorrect 11 position to take. 12 MR. LOPEZ: Mr. Marotta, it is not 13 incorrect. Just because you put it on there 14 doesn't mean it's upheld. So let's be clear about 15 that. 16 So number two, the ordinance, the 17 vacancy decontrol ordinance did not require any 18 type of notice to the rent leveling office. It 19 simply indicated the rent -- the vacancy decontrol 20 ordinance decontrolled the rent, period. 21 MR. MAROTTA: Okay. Mr. Lopez -- 22 MR. LOPEZ: Am I right or am I wrong? 23 MR. MAROTTA: You're wrong. 24 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. Where in the 25 ordinance --  61 1 MR. MAROTTA: You were not at the 2 hearing. And the reason for the hearing 3 originally to determine whether vacancy decontrol 4 was acknowledged, okay. There was a question at 5 that time whether or not there was actual -- what 6 I will call it blanket vacancy decontrol. And the 7 reason that's the case is because correspondingly 8 there was an ordinance that required -- and you're 9 fully familiar with it -- a rental unit 10 preservation allowance and subsequently a rental 11 unit renovation allowance, which if read in para 12 menteria with each other, would determine that 13 certain steps had to be made. And the board had 14 acted accordingly in regard to that up until 15 November 2021. And at that time, it was presented 16 to the board what is the actual case. And it was 17 put before the board and the board made a 18 determination there was blanket decontrol from '96 19 on, until May 2013, May 5, 2013. 20 MR. LOPEZ: That's what the ordinance 21 said from '96 to 2013, there was vacancy 22 decontrol. 23 MR. MAROTTA: And that board made that 24 determination in November 2021. 25 MR. LOPEZ: But that was already in the  62 1 ordinance, Mr. Marotta. Either the ordinance 2 contained it -- if the ordinance did not contain a 3 vacancy decontrol provision, this board could not 4 have found that vacancy decontrol existed. So it 5 either existed through the ordinance or it didn't 6 exist at all. 7 MR. MAROTTA: I think it was clear from 8 what I stated. 9 MR. NG: Mr. Marotta, I'm sorry to 10 interrupt. But both lawyers have the opportunity 11 to argue, to discuss everything. We have a motion 12 alive, seconded. Why are we going back to the 13 beginning? 14 MR. LOPEZ: I'm not looking to argue, 15 I'm just looking for clarification as to what is 16 being considered by this board. I don't care what 17 the ruling is going to be. Before I first stepped 18 into this room in December, I knew what the ruling 19 was going to be. We all knew what the ruling was 20 going to be. There's never fairness before this 21 board. 22 MR. MAROTTA: Objection. 23 MS. RIVERA: Objection. 24 MR. LOPEZ: It's a waste of time. Rule, 25 but clarify what you're doing.  63 1 MR. MAROTTA: Objection. The 2 clarification was stated based upon the resolution 3 that was already adopted in October. 4 MR. LOPEZ: So they don't want to 5 address any of the points, they don't want to 6 clarify it in way? 7 MR. MAROTTA: No. Another statement, 8 self-serving statement, Mr. Lopez. Where you're 9 going ahead to try to characterize the way you 10 wanted the board to establish a record for you. 11 It's just not correct. 12 MR. LOPEZ: Not at all. 13 MR. MAROTTA: It's not appropriate. 14 MR. LOPEZ: Not at all. 15 MR. MAROTTA: I disagree. 16 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. Can we have them 17 clarify for me the individual points. If it's 18 no -- if I'm wrong, then no, that's not what was 19 taken into consideration. 20 MR. NG: Can I finish my roll call? 21 MR. MAROTTA: I'm going to present it to 22 the board. The board can -- 23 MR. LOPEZ: Let them vote. 24 MR. MAROTTA: Further, it's the board's 25 right to open anything, to close anything, and to  64 1 move forward with the matter. 2 MR. LOPEZ: Mr. Marotta, I have no 3 objection with them voting. There's a motion I 4 understand. After they vote, I would like them to 5 clarify these points, just so the record is clear. 6 That's the only thing I'm asking. 7 MR. NG: Let me tell you, I prefer to -- 8 MR. MAROTTA: Let me go -- 9 MR. NG: -- with the roll call. 10 MR. MAROTTA: It's up to the board -- 11 MR. NG: -- the clarification. 12 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Definitely, let's go 13 ahead with the roll CALL because it's going to 14 confuse the record and a lot of other things if we 15 don't vote for 20 minutes after the motion is 16 done. 17 MR. NG: So motion was made by our 18 chairman, Juan Milan, and our vice chairman 19 seconded. So roll call. 20 Commissioner Ydaly Pozo. 21 COMMISSIONER POZO: Yes. 22 MR. NG: Commissioner Yamirus Holguin. 23 COMMISSIONER HOLGUIN: Yes. 24 MR. NG: Commissioner Vice Chairman 25 Sandra Vasquez.  65 1 VICE CHAIRPERSON VASQUEZ: Yes. 2 MR. NG: Commissioner Rosana Colon. 3 COMMISSIONER COLON: Yes. 4 MR. NG: Chairman Juan Milan. 5 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Yes. 6 MR. NG: Motion has passed. So you go 7 ahead, whatever you want to do. 8 MR. LOPEZ: So the clarification that I 9 would like is the Chairman's explanation was that 10 when they did the filing in January of 2020, that 11 they could have appealed the decision at that 12 point; is that correct, Mr. Chairman? 13 MR. MAROTTA: Again, I'm going to -- the 14 board -- 15 CHAIRMAN MILAN: What do you advise as 16 our counsel? 17 MR. MAROTTA: The board has -- 18 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Do we answer? 19 MR. MAROTTA: -- voted on the matter. 20 The record has been -- there's been definite basis 21 for the determination that has been set forth by 22 the board, okay. So there's a factual basis, 23 there's a regulation basis for that decision. 24 It's up to the board if they want to continue. I 25 do believe that initially the way it was stated by  66 1 Mr. Lopez, it was totally inappropriate because he 2 was -- 3 MR. LOPEZ: Neil, it wasn't -- 4 MR. MAROTTA: -- giving a -- 5 MR. LOPEZ: It wasn't considered. So 6 whatever I said that you found inappropriate, it's 7 not a factor, they voted. Now I want to know -- 8 MR. MAROTTA: My decision is the board 9 has made its decision, the matter is closed. 10 VICE CHAIRPERSON VASQUEZ: What 11 difference that's going to make whatever we say if 12 we already voted and that's already done with? 13 MR. MAROTTA: Counsel is trying to 14 establish his record. I appreciate that, I really 15 do. 16 MR. LOPEZ: I want to know what right 17 the applicant had to file an appeal beyond the 18 time frame established by the ordinance? 19 CHAIRMAN MILAN: As far as I understand, 20 correct me if I'm wrong, you can always file an 21 appeal. 22 MR. LOPEZ: Not according to the notice. 23 MR. MAROTTA: That's correct. 24 MR. LOPEZ: Where is the -- can we have 25 an indication from the ordinance, Counsel, as to  67 1 what gives you the right to appeal at any time 2 even beyond -- 3 MR. MAROTTA: A person can appeal any 4 time. But if -- because you cannot -- 5 MR. LOPEZ: If you file a complaint 6 after the statute -- 7 MR. MAROTTA: You can file it. Whether 8 there's reason to consider it thereafter -- 9 CHAIRMAN MILAN: That's different. 10 MR. MAROTTA: -- is up to the board to 11 make a decision. 12 MR. LOPEZ: My question is where is that 13 power entrusted to the board? I'd like that 14 clarification. 15 MR. MAROTTA: I think due process. If 16 they go ahead and say you were never served the 17 notice and they could prove that -- for example, a 18 notice went out tonight on another matter. It was 19 the wrong address. 20 MR. LOPEZ: So the same due process that 21 the rent leveling office doesn't follow because 22 they don't send anything by certified mail? 23 MR. MAROTTA: That is not correct. 24 MR. LOPEZ: That's a different due 25 process.  68 1 MR. MAROTTA: That's not correct. 2 CHAIRMAN MILAN: By the way, at the time 3 that we're talking about, certified mail was not 4 the process that they were using. 5 MR. LOPEZ: But Mr. Chairman -- 6 CHAIRMAN MILAN: It was changed to make 7 it more accurate, as issues with Covid and all 8 that, made the mail a heck of a lot tougher to get 9 out. 10 MR. LOPEZ: No, Mr. Chairman, because 11 it's the right thing to do, to send by certified 12 mail. And just because they were doing it 13 improperly back then doesn't justify their 14 actions. Let's be real. 15 MR. NG: It was not improperly, that was 16 the procedure that they used to do. 17 CHAIRMAN MILAN: It was the procedure 18 for over ten years. 19 MR. NG: When you came to be -- 20 MR. LOPEZ: It doesn't -- 21 MR. NG: Then we changed it to be 22 better. 23 MR. LOPEZ: Correct. And it doesn't 24 make what was done at the time correct, so let's 25 be real.  69 1 CHAIRMAN MILAN: I know, but things are 2 done the best way possible that people see until 3 they realize what we can do a lot better. I mean 4 I remember having to tape our meetings with that 5 machine where we were looking, like did we go 6 over? 7 MR. NG: And when we did I change it. 8 And we didn't have a transcriber. And I brought 9 the transcriber here. So we made -- 10 CHAIRMAN MILAN: We obviously improve. 11 MR. LOPEZ: But certified mailing was 12 available in 2019. 13 MR. MAROTTA: We understand. I mean 14 this matter has been -- 15 CHAIRMAN MILAN: The matter has been 16 closed. I think the explanation is that based on 17 what we saw -- 18 MR. MAROTTA: -- to the application, 19 then he's welcome. 20 MR. LOPEZ: I understand that's the 21 explanation for that. Then the other explanation 22 that I would like is how was the 473.46 arrived. 23 MR. MAROTTA: I've given my advice. The 24 matter is closed. 25 CHAIRMAN MILAN: That I think has  70 1 already been explained. 2 MR. LOPEZ: No, no. No one has ever 3 explained it here. If you don't want to give me 4 an explanation, that's fine also. But we're -- 5 it's my understanding that we are just -- we're 6 following a figure just because it was written on 7 this -- 8 MR. NG: Mr. Lopez, I believe -- 9 MR. LOPEZ: I'm not asking you. 10 MR. NG: No, no. 11 MR. LOPEZ: Mr. Ng, I'm not asking you. 12 MR. NG: Wait a minute, wait a minute. 13 MR. LOPEZ: You're here -- 14 MR. NG: Excuse me -- 15 MR. LOPEZ: You're not here, you're only 16 here to answer questions, if there are any. I'm 17 addressing my questions -- 18 MR. NG: Because you think you talk so 19 loud, people are going to be -- 20 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Guys. 21 MR. LOPEZ: This is not being -- 22 CHAIRMAN MILAN: At this point -- 23 24 (Unreportable cross-talk.) 25  71 1 CHAIRMAN MILAN: The matter is over. 2 Thank you very much. Thank you very much. 3 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. You got it. 4 When is the resolution going to be adopted, so I 5 can appeal it. 6 MR. MAROTTA: Depending on when I 7 receive the transcript, it will either be the 8 February or the March meeting. 9 MR. LOPEZ: I need a resolution though. 10 MR. MAROTTA: Absolutely. Let the 11 record reflect, there's been a resolution -- 12 MR. LOPEZ: Counsel has indicated that 13 she's going to send me copies of the items that 14 she marked into evidence today. 15 MR. MAROTTA: And if we don't have 16 anything, I'll get them from you. Okay. 17 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. 18 MR. MAROTTA: Thank you. If you can 19 send your exhibits when you get a chance? 20 MR. LOPEZ: I'll send them. To you? 21 MR. MAROTTA: To me and the office, by 22 email is fine. 23 24 25  72 1 OTHER BUSINESS: 2 3 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Do we have any other 4 matters? 5 MR. NG: Just a question for next 6 month's meeting. Is everybody good with the date? 7 I believe it's the 5th? 8 CHAIRMAN MILAN: A motion for the public 9 session of our meeting. 10 MR. NG: A motion was made by our 11 chairman. 12 COMMISSIONER POZO: I second it. 13 MR. NG: Second by Commissioner Pozo. 14 MR. MAROTTA: All in favor. 15 (All Board Members indicate in the 16 affirmative.) 17 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Is there anyone that 18 has -- in the public -- anything to say? Seeing 19 no answer, or hearing no answers, I make a motion 20 that we close that public session of the meeting. 21 MR. NG: So I need a motion to adjourn 22 the meeting. 23 CHAIRMAN MILAN: First we got to vote. 24 COMMISSIONER HOLGUIN: Second. 25 MR. NG: Commissioner Yamirus Holguin.  73 1 All in favor? 2 (All Board Members indicate in the 3 affirmative.) 4 5 ADJOURNMENT: 6 7 CHAIRMAN MILAN: Now I make a motion to 8 adjourn unless, there's some other administrative 9 thing to do? 10 MR. MAROTTA: The only thing is next 11 meeting, we'll have some resolutions at the next 12 meeting. 13 MR. NG: Okay. 14 CHAIRMAN MILAN: So I make a motion to 15 adjourn. 16 COMMISSIONER POZO: I second it. 17 MR. NG: All in favor? 18 19 (All Board Members indicate in the 20 affirmative.) 21 22 23 (Whereupon the meeting was adjourned at 24 8:10 p.m.) 25  74 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 5 6 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a 7 true and accurate transcript of the testimony and 8 proceedings as taken stenographically by me at the 9 time, place, and on the date hereinbefore set 10 forth. 11 12 13 14 SUSAN BISCHOFF, CCR, RPR LICENSE NO. 30XI00233700 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25