EL630241RO

                                  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.:  EL630241RO
                                                  
          PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP.            RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: DG610160OR
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On December 14, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued December 7, 1990. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 1564 Unionport Road, Bronx, N.Y.  
          The Administrator granted in part the owner's application for rent 
          restoration 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 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. BH610065B had been issued.  The Commissioner notes that 
          the rents were ordered reduced based on findings of defective 
          vents; graffiti on Section "A" bulkhead walls; peeling paint on 
          Section "A" seventh floor stairway wall; and peeling paint and 
          plaster on Section "B" bulkhead ceiling.  The Commissioner further 
          notes that the issue of the defective vents 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 14, 1990.  The 
          building was reinspected on October 30, 1990.  The inspector 
          reported that there was evidence of peeling paint and plaster on 
          the Section "B" bulkhead walls and ceiling.  The inspector also 
          reported that all other services had been restored.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 












          EL630241RO

          December 7, 1990.  With respect to rent controlled tenants the 
          Administrator granted the owner's application in part.  Rent 
          restoration of $2.00 per month was ordered based on the inspector's 
          report.  The Administrator advised the owner to refile for the 
          remaining $2.00 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 February 11, 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 
          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 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 






          EL630241RO

          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
                                     






    

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