ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FL 630015 RO
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.:
FL 630015 RO
:
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.:
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP./ FF 630248 OR
AMIT SIKDAR
PETITIONER : SUBJECT PREMISES:
------------------------------------X 1554 Unionport Road
Bronx, N.Y.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of the Administrator's order issued on
December 2, 1991 concerning the housing accommodations relating to
the above-described docket number.
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 on April 20, 1989 by
filing an application asserting that it had restored and was
maintaining certain services in the subject building for which a
rent reduction had been ordered.
Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the subject building on
August 29, 1991 revealed that although some defective conditions
had been repaired, "Section B bulkhead walls have peeling paint and
plaster."
The Administrator found a partial restoration of these
services and further ordered a partial restoration of the rent-
controlled tenants' rents. The owner's application to restore the
rents of the rent-stabilized tenants was denied.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FL 630015 RO
In the petition for administrative review of that order, the
owner requests reversal of said order alleging that the services in
issue are normal maintenance, are promptly attended to, and are of
a recurring nature. It is further alleged 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 prompt
attention to the cited conditions between the filing of the
application and the physical inspection. The owner had sufficient
time to make the required repairs or offer to the Administrator
proof of completed repairs subsequent to the inspection but prior
to the issuance of the order. In the opinion of the Commissioner,
an item of normal maintenance would have been corrected within
these time periods.
The Commissioner further notes that the original rent
reduction and the inspection report cite the same defective
conditions at the identical location - peeling paint and plaster on
Section B bulkhead walls.
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 proceeding under
review, conditions recurred between the filing of the application
and the inspection. 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 to 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
virtue of the DHCR inspection which occurred on August 29, 1991.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator
properly determined that the owner had failed to restore all
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FL 630015 RO
services based on the evidence of the record, including the results
of the on-site inspection 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.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code and the Rent and Eviction Regulations,
it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
