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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  EL630183RO
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: DD610126OR

               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 

               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 


          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 


          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 

               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.


                                             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