EL630080RO

                                  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.:  EL630080RO
                                                  
          PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP.            RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: DI630014OR
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On December 4, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued November 19, 1990. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 1735 Purdy Street, Bronx, 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 
          appeal.

               The owner commenced this proceeding on June 20, 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. BH610073B had been issued.  The Commissioner notes that the 
          rent was reduced based on findings of defective vents and peeling 
          paint and plaster on the stairwell walls of the "A" and "B" line 
          from the top floor to the roof.  The Commissioner also notes that 
          the issue of the defective vents has been deleted by the 
          Administrator and is no longer an active issue in this proceeding. 
          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 June 22, 1990.  The 
          building was reinspected on October 29, 1990.  The inspector 
          reported that there was peeling paint and plaster on the bulkhead 
          walls of both "A" and "B" sections.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          November 19, 1990 and denied the application based on the 
          inspector's report.












          EL630080RO

               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 the conditions cited in 
          the rent reduction and rent restoration orders are at different 
          physical locations.  The petition was served on the tenants on 
          January 7, 1991. 

               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner 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, which were several months 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 Commissioner notes that while the owner questions the 
          findings of fact, the record clearly reflects those findings by 
          virtue of the 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 
          inspections of the subject premises.  The Administrator correctly 
          denied the rent restoration application.

               The Commissioner further notes that the rent reduction 
          proceeding has been remanded to the Administrator for further 
          processing wherein the issue of whether a rent reduction was 
          warranted is being reexamined.  If the orders are revoked pursuant 
          to the remand, the rents will be restored as of the original 
          effective date of the reduction.  If the orders are affirmed 
          without modification, the owner's rights to restoration of the 
          rents based on applications previously or subsequently filed or 
          pending will not be affected.  If the orders are amended, the owner 
          may have to file new applications to restore based on the 
          restoration of services cited in the modified rent reduction 
          orders.

               The Commissioner notes that the owner reapplied for rent 
          restoration and that said reapplication, which was assigned Docket 
          No. FD630151OR, has been granted in part by the Administrator.
               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and 
          Rent and Eviction Regulations it is 






          EL630080RO


               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