ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 630163 RO et al.
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.:
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
Metropolitan
Ave.,
Bronx, NY
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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
walls.
Various tenants answered the owner's application and in
substance asserted the continued existence of peeling paint and
plaster.
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
walls."
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
plaster.
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
touch-up."
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
premises.
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
orders.
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.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
