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.: EL630080RO
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP. RENT
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
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
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
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
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
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