ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 630163 RO et al.

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

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.:              
                                                 FI 630163 RO;              
                                                 EL 630164 RO;              
                                                 EL 630168 RO               
                                              :  DISTRICT RENT              
                                                 ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET     
                                                 NOS.: FA-630167-OR;        
              PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP./            DF-630178-OR        
               AMIT SIKDAR                             
                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                 1515, 1519, 1527 and 1541  
                                                             Bronx, NY 
                              PETITIONER      :  


               The   above-named   owner   filed   timely   Petitions   for
          Administrative Review of the  Administrator's  orders  issued  on
          December 7, 1990 and September 24, 1990  concerning  the  housing
          accommodations relating to the above-described docket numbers.

               The Commissioner has reviewed all of  the  evidence  in  the
          record and has carefully considered that portion  of  the  record
          relevant to the issues raised by the petition.  

               The owner commenced this proceeding  by  applying  for  rent
          restoration (DF 630178 OR) based on the painting of the  basement

               Various tenants answered  the  owner's  application  and  in
          substance asserted the continued existence of peeling  paint  and

               Thereafter, physical inspections of  the  subject  buildings
          were conducted by DHCR staff. 

               In  respect  to  1515  Metropolitan  Avenue,  the  inspector

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 630163 RO et al.
          reported on May 25, 1990 that "the basement  floor  and  stairway
          steps were not clean" and that "the basement  walls  has  peeling
          paint and plaster"; the inspector reported on  October  24,  1990
          that the defective conditions had been removed.

               In  respect  to  1519  Metropolitan  Avenue,  the  inspector
          reported on May  25,  1990  that  "the  stairway  steps  and  the
          basement floor were not clean" and that "the  basement  wall  has
          peeling paint and plaster"; the inspector reported on October 24, 
          1990 that the remaining defective condition is that the  basement
          walls have not been painted. 

               In  respect  to  1527  Metropolitan  Avenue,  the  inspector
          reported on May  25,  1990  that  "the  basement  floor  and  the
          stairway steps were not clean" and that "the basement walls  have
          peeling paint and plaster"; the inspector reported on October 24, 
          1990 that "there was peeling paint and plaster  on  the  basement

               In  respect  to  1541  Metropolitan  Avenue,  the  inspector
          reported on May 25, 1990 that "the bulkhead  walls  of  A  and  B
          lines have peeling paint and  plaster"  and  that  "the  basement
          walls has peeling paint and plaster."  The inspector reported  on
          October 24, 1990 that "there was peeling paint and plaster on the 
          end wall of the bulkhead Section  A";  that  "there  was  peeling
          paint and plaster on the end wall and on walls  near  and  around
          the roof door of Section B"; and that there was  no  evidence  of
          peeling paint and plaster in the basement.  

               On December 7, 1990, the Administrator issued  orders  under
          Docket No. DF 630178-OR, partially restoring the  rents  for  all
          rent-controlled tenants  at  1519,  1527  and  1541  Metropolitan
          Avenue and fully restoring the rents  for  all  tenants  at  1515
          Metropolitan Avenue.

               On December 17, 1990, the owner filed multiple Petitions for 
          Administrative Review under Docket  Nos.  EL  630181  RO  and  EL
          630164 RO in respect  to  buildings  located  at  1527  and  1519
          Metropolitan Avenue.  The owner alleged that  repairs  were  made
          and that it would request copies of the inspection reports.  The 
          owner, however, provided no documentation to support the 
          contention that repairs were made.

               While the petitions under Docket Nos. EL 630181  RO  and  EL
          630164 RO were pending, the owner filed another rent  restoration
          application on January 11, 1991 (FA 630167 OR), alleging that the 
          basement walls were repaired on December 31, 1990.

               Various tenants answered the owner's application,  asserting
          in  substance  the  continued  existence  of  peeling  paint  and

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 630163 RO et al.
               Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the  building  at  1519
          Metropolitan Avenue on June 25, 1991 revealed that  the  basement
          walls had areas of peeling paint and  plaster,  needing  "further

               An on-site inspection of the building at  1527  Metropolitan
          Avenue on June  20,  1991  disclosed  that  large  areas  of  the
          basement walls were not painted.

               Based on said inspections, the Administrator issued an order 
          on September 26, 1991 under Docket No. FA 630167  OR,  concluding
          that the basement walls in these buildings were  repaired  in  an
          unworkmanlike manner, and again denying the owner's application.

               In the petition for administrative review (FI 630163 RO)  of
          that order,  the  owner  requests  reversal,  alleging  that  the
          services in issue are normal maintenance, are  promptly  attended
          to, are of a recurring nature and that there is not  an  identity
          of location of the alleged conditions.

               After careful consideration,  the  Commissioner  is  of  the
          opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The  Commissioner  notes  that  although   the   owner   has
          characterized the cited  conditions  as  normal  maintenance  and
          something which is "promptly attended  to,"  the  record  reveals
          that "normal maintenance" did not, in this case,  include  either
          prompt attention to the cited condition between the dates of  the

          inspections,  several  months  apart.   In  the  opinion  of  the
          Commissioner, an item  of  normal  maintenance  would  have  been
          corrected within this time span.

               The  Commissioner  further  notes  that  the  original  rent
          reduction and the inspection  reports  cite  the  same  defective
          conditions at the identical  location-  basement  walls  at  1519
          Metropolitan Avenue  have  not  been  painted;  and  evidence  of
          peeling  paint  and  plaster  on  the  basement  walls  of   1527
          Metropolitan Avenue. 

               The owner's contention that the cited conditions  are  of  a
          recurring nature is not only insufficient reason to  disturb  the
          Administrator's order, but in the opinion of the Commissioner, is 
          reason a fortiori to affirm the order.   During  the  proceedings
          under review, conditions  recurred  between  the  filing  of  the
          application and the inspections.  Defective conditions  recurring
          with such alacrity should put  the  owner  on  notice  either  to
          increase the instances of, or to shorten the intervals between 
          normal maintenance, to use a more weather  or  moisture-resistant
          type of paint, or find another solution which would  ensure  that
          its tenants are not made to suffer the continued disrepair of the 
               The Commissioner notes that while the  owner  questions  the
          findings of fact, the record clearly reflects those  findings  by

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 630163 RO et al.
          virtue of DHCR  inspections  which  occurred  on  May  25,  1990,
          October 24, 1990, June 20, 1991 and June 25, 1991.

               Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that  the  Administrator
          properly determined that the owner  had  failed  to  restore  all
          services based on the  evidence  of  the  record,  including  the
          results of the  on-site  inspections  of  the  subject  premises,
          correctly denied rent restoration applications for the rent  
          stabilized  tenants   and   correctly   partially   denied   rent
          restoration applications for the rent-controlled tenants.

               This Order and Opinion is issued without  prejudice  to  the
          owner's rights as they may pertain to a de  novo  application  to
          the  Division  for  a  restoration  of  rents  based   upon   the
          restoration of services.
               It is also noted that the rent  reduction  proceedings  have
          been remanded to the Administrator for further processing wherein 
          the issue of whether a rent reduction was warranted is bei g  re-
          examined.  If the orders are revoked pursuant to the remand,  the
          rents will be restored ab initio.  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 will have to file new applications to restore based on  the
          restoration of services cited  in  the  modified  rent  reduction

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and 
          Code and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is

               ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same  hereby  are,
          denied, and that the Administrator's  orders  be,  and  the  same
          hereby are, affirmed.


                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting 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