EL630183RO
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.: EL630183RO
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP. RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: DD610126OR
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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 2240 East Tremont Ave., Bronx,
N.Y. The Administrator granted in part the owner's application for
rent controlled tenants and denied the application for 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 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. BH610072B had been issued based on a finding of
stairwell steps requiring cleaning, stairwell walls on A & B lines,
top floor to roof have peeling paint and plaster, peeling paint and
plaster from lobby stairwell to basement terrace apartment, and
inoperable elevator floor indicators. The defective vent condition
was subsequently deleted in an amended order.
The tenants were served with copies of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. One tenant filed a response on
June 10, 1989 and stated that the application should be denied
because the stairwells were not properly cleaned and that the
stairwell from the second floor to the basement had not been
painted or plastered in years.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspections were conducted on June 4, 1990 and
October 29, 1990. The first inspection revealed that the stairwell
EL630183RO
steps were not clean, the bulkhead walls of Sections A & B and the
lobby stairwells walls to the basement had peeling paint and
plaster, and the elevator indicators were operable. The second
inspection revealed that the stairwell steps were clean, the
bulkhead walls of Section "A" were in the process of being repaired
but there was peeling paint and plaster on the bulkhead of Section
"B", and there was no evidence of peeling paint on the lobby
stairwell to the basement
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
December 3, 1990. With regard to rent controlled tenants, the
application was granted in part and rent restoration of $6.00 per
month was ordered. The owner was advised to refile for the
remaining $2.00 per month when the remaining repairs to the Section
A & B bulkheads had been completed. The application was denied
with regard 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 February 12, 1991.
Three tenants filed responses to the petition however the
response of only one was relevant to the issue of the condition of
the bulkheads. The tenant stated that the bulkhead condition
evidenced a lack of proper maintenance.
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 bulkhead 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
EL630183RO
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
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
|
