EL630244RO
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.: EL630244RO
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 1560 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; Section "A" sixth floor stairway door does not self close;
graffiti on bulkhead walls of Section "A" first and second floors
and on fifth floor stairway wall of Section "B"; basement walls
peeling paint and plaster, waterstained and discolored; Section "B"
fifth floor stairwell walls peeling paint and plaster; and peeling
paint and plaster on bulkhead walls of Section "A" due to water
leak. 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 16, 1990. The
building was reinspected on October 30, 1990. The inspector
reported that there was evidence of peeling paint and plaster on
EL630244RO
the bulkheqad walls of Section "A". The inspector also reported
that all other services had been restored.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
December 7, 1990. With respect to rent controlled tenants the
Administrator granted the owner's application in part. Rent
restoration of $10.00 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 22, 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
EL630244RO
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
|
