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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  EL630172RO
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: DD630129OR


               On December 12, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued December 4, 1990. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 1604 Metropolitan Avenue, Bronx, 
          N.Y.  The Administrator granted the owner's rent restoration 
          application in part 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 25, 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. BH610089B had been issued.  The Commissioner notes that 
          the rent was reduced based on findings of defective vents, basement 
          and stairwell steps requiring cleaning, basement walls and stairway 
          walls of the "B" line on the sixth, seventh and ninth floors with 
          peeling paint and plaster and waterstained walls of section "A" and 
          "B" stairways.  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 May 23, 1990.  The building was reinspected on October 
          22, 1990. The inspector reported that there was evidence of peeling 
          paint and plaster on the basement walls and waterstains on the 
          bulkhead walls of Section "B".


               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          December 4, 1990.  Rent restoration of $4.00 per month was ordered 
          for rent controlled tenants.  The owner was given leave to refile 
          for the remaining $2.00 per month when services were fully 
          restored.  The application was denied with regard to rent 
          stabilized tenants.

               On appeal the owner, as 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 31, 1991.  

               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted 
          in part and the order here under review should be affirmed as 

               The Commissioner notes that, with regard to the issue of 
          peeling paint and plaster on the basement walls, 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 with respect to the 
          basement walls.

               The petition is granted with regard to the issue of the 
          waterstained bulkhead walls of Section "B".  The Commissioner finds 
          that this condition was not included in the Administrator's 
          findings in Docket No. BH610089B and the owner was not on notice 
          that the condition involving the bulkhead wall had to be corrected.
          Therefore, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the order here 
          under review should be modified to grant the owner's application in 


          part to the extent of ordering $1.00 per month in rent restoration 
          for rent controlled tenants with the owner given leave to file for 
          the remaining $1.00 per month when services have been fully 
          restored.  The order is affirmed with regard to rent stabilized 

               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.

               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, 
          granted in part, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and 
          the same hereby is, modified to grant the application in part for 
          rent controlled tenants to the extent of ordering rent restoration 
          of $5.00 per month.  The order is affirmed as modified herein for 
          rent controlled tenants and affirmed for rent stabilized tenants.  
          Any rent controlled tenant who owes arrears based on the 
          Commissioner's determination herein may pay off said arrears in 
          installments of $1.00 per month or immediately if a tenant vacates.


                                             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