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.: EH510111RO
PARKOFF MANAGEMENT RENT
C/O 2461 MANAGEMENT CO. ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 14, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued July 18, 1990. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt 4D located at 2461 Amsterdam Avenue,
New York, N.Y. The Administrator denied the owner's application
for rent restoration.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The owner commenced this proceeding on October 31, 1989 by
filing a rent restoration application wherein it alleged that it
had restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing
Docket No. BF510383S had been issued.
The tenant was served with a copy of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on May 29, 1990 and
revealed, among other things, that there was evidence of roach and
rodent infestation in the kitchen and bathroom and that there was
peeling paint and plaster on the kitchen and bathroom walls and
The Administrator issued the order here under review on July
18, 1990 and denied the owner's application based on the
On appeal the owner states that it had filed a prior rent
restoration application which was assigned Docket No. CB510013OR.
This application was denied by the Administrator in an order issued
September 29, 1988 in which the Administrator found that certain
services had been restored. In the order here under review
however, the Administrator found that some of those restored
services were not being maintained. The owner argues that the
Administrator erred in so finding. With regard to the peeling
paint and plaster and the infestation condition, the owner provides
copies of signed work orders which are offered to show that the
conditions have been corrected. The petition was served on the
tenant on August 20, 1990.
The tenant filed a response on October 8, 1990 and stated, in
substance, that the owner had failed to restore services.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The owner's argument with regard to the findings made in
Docket No. CB510013OR are irrelevant to the issue of whether the
Administrator properly denied the instant application. In the prior
order, the Administrator found that there was evidence of peeling
paint and plaster and an infestation condition. In the order here
under review, the Administrator found the same conditions existing.
These findings, supported by the relevant reports of the DHCR
inspectors, provided the basis for denying the applications.
With regard to the owner's argument that it had restored
services and that the conditions may have reoccurred, the owner is
under a continuing duty to maintain all required services. The
report of the DHCR inspector clearly stated that the owner has
failed to correct the infestation condition or repair the peeling
paint and plaster. Numerous prior decisions of the
Commissioner have held that this report is entitled to greater
probative weight than the statements of a party to the proceeding.
The order here under review is affirmed.
The Commissioner notes that the owner reapplied for rent
restoration and the Administrator granted this application on
February 26, 1992 in an order bearing Docket No. FG510162OR.
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