EL630062RO
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.: EL630062RO
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP. RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: DD610120OR
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 10, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued November 28, 1990. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 2160 East Tremont Ave., 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
appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding on April 17, 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. BH610071B had been issued. The tenants were served with
copies of the application and afforded an opportunity to respond.
Responses were filed by several tenants who stated, in sum, that
the owner had not restored services.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspection was conducted on June 4, 1990. The
building was reinspected on October 29, 1990. The inspector
reported evidence of peeling paint and plaster on bulkhead walls of
Sections A & B. All other services were found to be maintained.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
November 29, 1990. Rent restoration of $2.00 per month was granted
for rent controlled tenants. The owner was advised to refile for
the remaining $3.00 when the remaining service was restored. The
application was denied with regard to rent stabilized tenants.
EL630062RO
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
proceeding. The petition was served on the tenants on January 23,
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
inspection, 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.
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. 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.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and
Rent and Eviction Regulations it is
EL630062RO
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
el
|
