EL630037RO                                 

                                  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.:              
EL630037RO
             PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP.,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     DD630140OR
          ----------------------------------x



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On December 5, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          November 15, 1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the 
          housing accommodations known as 1490 East Avenue, Bronx, New York, 
          various apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that 
          the legal regulated rent of rent controlled apartments was to be 
          partially restored in the amount of $2.00 per month plus all lawful 
          increases granted subsequent to the order of January 27, 1989, 
          which reduced the rent of all regulated apartments in the subject 
          building.  The Rent Administrator denied the owner's rent restora- 
          tion applications for rent stabilized apartments.  The orders of 
          partial rent restoration were made effective the first day of the 
          month following the issuance date of the orders.  The Rent Adminis- 
          trator's orders were based on inspections held on May 29, 1990 and 
          October 24, 1990, which disclosed that although a number of 
          services were being maintained, there was peeling paint and plaster 
          on the bulkhead walls of both Sections A and B.   

          The commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issue raised by the administrative appeal.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly denied 
          the owner full rent restorations for rent controlled and rent sta- 
          bilized apartments.















          EL630037RO                                 



          The owner commenced this proceeding on April 26, 1989, by filing an 
          Application for Rent Restoration wherein it alleged that it had 
          restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing Docket 
          No. BH610101B had been issued.  The tenants were served with copies 
          of the application and afforded an opportunity to respond.

          The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  Two inspections were conducted, on May 29, 1990 and 
          October 24, 1990.  The inspector reported that the bulkhead walls 
          of Sections A and B evidenced peeling paint and plaster.

          On appeal the owner, represented by counsel, states that the 
          service reported as not being maintained is one requiring normal 
          maintenance, is promptly attended to and is of a recurring nature.  
          The owner further states that the work has been completed but 
          simply recurs and is done again and that there is not an identity 
          of location between the conditions cited in the inspection reports 
          for the rent reduction proceeding and those of the rent restoration 
          proceeding.

          The petition was served on the tenants on January 18, 1991, but the 
          tenants failed to file answers to the petition.

          After careful review of the evidence in the record, the Commis- 
          sioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

          The Commissioner notes that although the owner has characterized 
          the cited condition as normal maintenance and something which is 
          "promptly attended to" but recurs, the record reveals that "normal 
          maintenance" did not, in this case, include prompt attention to the 
          cited condition between the dates of the inspections in this 
          proceeding and those conducted in Docket No. BH610101B.  The in- 
          spections were conducted more than one year apart.  In the opinion 
          of the Commissioner, an item of normal maintenance would have been 
          corrected within this time span and, if corrected properly, would 
          not have reappeared.  The Commissioner further notes that the 
          original rent reduction order and the corresponding inspection 
          reports in the restoration proceedings cite the same defective 
          condition at the identical location.  The owner's application to 
          restore rent certified that the walls of Section A & B were 
          completely painted on February 7, 1989.

          The Commissioner notes that while the owner questions the findings 
          of fact, the record clearly reflects those findings by virtue of 
          the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspections 
          described above.  Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the 










          EL630037RO                                 

          Administrator properly determined that the owner had failed to 
          restore all services based on the evidence of record, including the 
          results of the on-site physical inspections of the subject 
          premises.

          This Order and Opinion is without prejudice to the owner's right to 
          file a new rent restoration application based upon restoration of 
          the remaining service.


          THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and the 
          Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          that the Rent Administrator's orders be, and the same hereby, are 
          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