ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EL 630204 RO


                                  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.:               
                                                 EL 630204 RO
                                              :
                                                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S     
                                                 DOCKET NO.:              
                                                 DD 630128 OR
                PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP./      
                AMIT SIKDAR                      PREMISES: 1561              
                                                 Metropolitan Ave.,
                              PETITIONER      :  Bronx, N.Y.
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               The above-named owner filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.

               The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the 
          record and has carefully considered that portion of the record 
          relevant to the issues raised by the petition.  

               The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an application 
          asserting that it had restored and was maintaining certain services 
          in the subject building.

               Thereafter, on May 25, 1990 and on October 24, 1990, 
          inspections of the subject premises were conducted by DHCR 
          inspectors who found that certain services had been restored but 
          that the bulkhead walls of Section A had not been painted and that 
          the bulkhead walls of Section B were peeling paint and plaster. 

               The Administrator found a partial restoration of these 
          services and further ordered a partial restoration of the rent- 
          controlled tenants' rents.  The owner's application to restore the 
          rents of the rent stabilized tenants was denied.


















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EL 630204 RO

               In the petition for administrative review, the owner requests 
          reversal of the Administrator's order alleging that the services in 
          issue are normal maintenance, are promptly attended to, and are of 
          a recurring nature.  It is further alleged that the alleged 
          conditions have no identity of location.  

               After careful consideration, 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 "promptly attended to," the record reveals that "normal 
          maintenance" did not, in this case, include prompt attention to the 
          cited conditions between the date of the two inspections conducted 
          five months apart on May 25, 1990 and October 24, 1990.  In the 
          opinion of the Commissioner, items of normal maintenance would have 
          been corrected within this time span.  

               The Commissioner further notes that the original rent 
          reduction order and both inspection reports cite the identical 
          location - the bulkhead walls of Sections A and B. 

               The owner's contention that the cited conditions are of a 
          recurring nature is not only insufficient reason to disturb the 
          Administrator's order but, in the opinion of the Commissioner, is 
          reason a fortiori to affirm the Administrator's order.  During the 
          proceeding under review, conditions recurred between the filing of 
          the application and the first inspection and again between the 
          first and second inspections.  Defective conditions recurring with 
          such alacrity should put the owner on notice either to increase the 
          instances of or to shorten the intervals between normal 
          maintenance, to use a more weather - or moisture-resistant type of 
          paint, or to find another solution which would ensure that its 
          tenants are not made to suffer the continued disrepair of the 
          premises.

               The Commissioner notes that while the owner questions the 
          findings of fact, the record clearly reflects those findings by 
          virtue of DHCR inspections which occurred on May 25, 1990 and on 
          October 24, 1990.

               Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator 
          properly determined that the owner had failed to restore all 
          services based on the evidence of the record, including the results 
          of the physical inspections of the subject premises, correctly 
          denied rent restorations for the rent-stabilized tenants and 
          correctly partially denied rent restorations for the rent- 
          controlled tenants.


               This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the 
          owner's rights as they may pertain to a de novo application to the 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EL 630204 RO

          Division for a restoration of rents based upon the restoration of 
          services.

               It is also noted that the rent reduction proceedings have been 
          remanded to the Administrator for further processing wherein the 
          issue of whether a rent reduction was warranted is being re- 
          examined.  If the orders are revoked pursuant to the remand, the 
          rents will be restored ab initio.  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 
          will have to file new applications to restore based on the 
          restoration of services cited in the modified rent reduction 
          orders. 
               
               THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code and the Rent and Eviction Regulations 
          for New York City, it is  

               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
          is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:





                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting 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