EL630115RO
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.: EL630115RO
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP. RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: DD610121OR
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 20, 1990. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 5 Metropolitan Oval, Bronx, N.Y.
The Administrator granted in part 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 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. BH610064B had been issued.
The tenants were served with copies of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. Four tenants filed responses to
the application and stated that services had not been restored.
One tenant filed a response and stated that everything had been
corrected.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspection was conducted on May 21, 1990. The
building was reinspected on October 25, 1990. The inspector
reported that there was evidence of peeling paint and plaster on
the basement walls near the compactor. The inspector also reported
that all other services had been restored.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
November 20, 1990. With respect to rent controlled tenants the
Administrator granted the owner's application in part. Rent
EL630115RO
restoration of $15.00 per month was ordered based on the
inspector's report. The Administrator advised the owner to refile
for the remaining $3.00 per month when services were fully
restored. The application was denied with respect to rent
stabilized tenants.
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. The petition was served on the
tenants on January 28, 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 for rent stabilized tenants
and correctly granted the application in part for rent controlled
tenants.
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 services. 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
EL630115RO
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
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
|