STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: DD630217RO
PAULDING DEVELOPMENT CO. RENT
SEYMOUR MAIZES ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
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
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,
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
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
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA