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.:
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP.,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 10, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
November 19, 1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodations known as 1585 Odell Street, 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 December 29, 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 an inspection held on October 24,
1990, which disclosed that although a number of services were being
maintained, there was peeling paint and plaster on the bulkhead
right side wall of Section 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-
The owner commenced this proceeding on January 31, 1990, by filing
an Application for Rent Restoration wherein it alleged that it had
restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing Docket
No. BH610086B 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. The inspection was conducted on October 24, 1990. The
inspector reported that the bulkhead wall of Section 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
The petition was served on the tenants on January 7, 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 inspection in this
proceeding and those conducted in Docket No. BH610086B. The in-
spections were conducted almost 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
report 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 January 30, 1990.
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
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 inspection 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
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA