STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  EL630194RO
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: EB630098OR

               On December 12, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued December 3, 1990. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 1439 Wood Road, Bronx, N.Y.  The 
          Administrator granted in part the owner's rent restoration 
          application with regard to rent controlled tenants and denied the 
          application with regard to rent stabilized tenants.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 

               The owner commenced this proceeding on April 7, 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. BH610112B had been issued.  The Commissioner notes that the 
          rent was reduced based on findings of defective vents, stairwell 
          walls of Sections "A" and "B" from top floor to main floor are 
          waterstained, bulkhead walls of Section "A" are blistered, 
          discolored, cracked and peeling paint and plaster and bulkhead 
          walls of Section "B" requiring painting.  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. Various tenants filed responses 
          and stated, in sum, that the owner had not restored services and 
          that the application should be denied.

               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspection was conducted on October 29, 1990.  The 
          inspector reported that there was peeling paint and plaster on the 


          bulkhead walls of Section "A".  All other services were found to 
          have been maintained.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          December 3, 1990.  The application was granted in part with regard 
          to rent controlled tenants.  Rent restoration of $2.00 per month 
          was ordered with the owner given leave to file for the remaining 
          $2.00 when the Section "A" bulkhead was repaired.  The application 
          was denied with regard to rent stabilized tenants.

               On appeal the owner, represented by counsel, states that the 
          services reported as not being maintained are ones requiring normal 
          maintenance, are promptly attended to and are 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 30, 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 conditions 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 conditions between the dates of the 
          inspections in the rent reduction and rent restoration proceeding, 
          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 inspection 
          of the subject premises.  The Administrator correctly denied the 
          rent restoration application.

                 The Commissioner 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 Commissine notes that the owner's reappliaction for rent 
          restoration, which was assigned Docket No. EL630068OR, has been 
          granted 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
                                             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