FL630115RO

                                  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.:  FL630115RO
                                                  
          PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP.            RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: FD630151OR
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On December 23, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued December 10, 1991. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 1735 Purdy Street, Bronx, N.Y.  
          The Administrator granted the owner's application for rent 
          restoration in part with regard to rent controlled tenants and 
          denied 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 16, 1991 by 
          filing an Application for Rent Restoration wherein it alleged that 
          it had restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing 
          Docket No. BH610073B had been issued.  The Commissioner notes that 
          the rent was reduced based on findings of defective vents and 
          peeling paint and plaster on the stairwell walls of the "A" and "B" 
          line from the top floor to the roof  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 October 25, 1991.  The 
          inspector reported that the bulkhead walls of Section "B" were 
          blistered but that the bulkhead walls of Section "A" showed no 
          evidence of peeling paint and plaster.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          December 10, 1991.  With regard to rent controlled tenants the 












          FL630115RO

          application was granted to the extent of ordering rent restoration 
          of $2.00 per month with the owner being given leave to refile for 
          the remaining $2.00 when services have been fully restored.  The 
          application was denied with regard to rent stabilized tenants.

               On appeal the owner, as 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 and that the condition cited in 
          the rent reduction and rent restoration orders are at different 
          physical locations.  The petition was served on the tenants on 
          January 21, 1992. 

               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 in the rent reduction and rent restoration proceedings, 
          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 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 
          may have to file new applications to restore based on the 






          FL630115RO

          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