DD630217RO

                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433


          ----------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  DD630217RO
                                                  
          PAULDING DEVELOPMENT CO.                RENT
          SEYMOUR MAIZES                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: CE630177OR
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On April 21, 1989 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued March 28, 1989. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 2121 Paulding Ave., Bronx, N.Y.  
          The Administrator denied the owner's rent restoration application.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 
          appeal.

               The owner commenced this proceeding on July 22, 1988 by filing 
          a rent restoration application wherein it stated that it had 
          restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing Docket 
          No. BB630022B had been issued.

               The tenants were served with copies of the application and 
          afforded an opportunity to respond. A response was filed on July 
          21, 1988, by the tenants association.  The response stated, in sum, 
          that the owner had not fully restored services and, therefore, that 
          the application should be denied.  Responses were also received 
          from individual tenants wherein they also stated that the owner had 
          not restored services.
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspection was conducted on November 21, 1988 and 
          revealed the following:

                    1.   Four vents servicing apartment bathrooms and halls 
                         are still broken,

                    2.   Entrance of building is littered,













          DD630217RO


                    3.   Landscaping needs cleaning,

                    4.   Four swings are missing.

          The following services were found to have been maintained:

                    1.   Public halls painted when necessary,

                    2.   No evidence of leaks,

                    3.   Fence is repaired,

                    4.   Three lights have been repaired.  

          The inspector also reported that there are no public bathrooms.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on March 
          28, 1989 and denied the application based on the report of the DHCR 
          inspector.

               On appeal the owner states that most of the conditions cited 
          in the rent reduction order have been corrected and that only minor 
          items have not been repaired.  The petition was served on the 
          tenants on August 11, 1989.

               Various tenants filed responses to the petition and stated, in 
          sum, that the owner had not restored services and that the petition 
          should be denied. 
           
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the rent reduction order issued 
          in Docket No. BB630028B and is of the opinion that the 
          Administrator correctly determined that the owner had not restored 
          services.  The rent reduction order cited defective vents on all 
          floors, a littered building entrance, landscaping in need of 
          cleaning and missing swings as conditions warranting the rent 
          reduction.  The report of the DHCR inspector, who is neither a 
          party nor an adversary to the proceeding, clearly states that the 
          owner did not comply with the directive to restore services.  The 
          owner has offered no basis for the Commissioner to find that it 
          fully restored services and is thus eligible for rent restoration. 
          The order here under review is affirmed.
               
               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it 
          is 










          DD630217RO



               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                             
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Deputy Commissioner
                                   






    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name