Adm. Review Docket No.: FB 630030-RO
                                 STATE OF NEW YORK
                           OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

        APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: FE 630030-RO 
             PARKCHESTER   MANAGEMENT   CORP.,        DRO    DOCKET    NOS.:
                                               FB 630023-OR/ BH 610093-B
                              PETITIONER    : 

        On  May  1,  1991,  the  above-named  owner  filed  a  petition  for
        administrative  review  of  an  order  issued  on  April  23,   1991
        concerning t e  housing  accommodations  relating  to   the   above-
        described docket number.  

        The Commissioner has reviewed all 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 February 5, 1991 by filing an 
        application to restore rent based on  restoration  of  services  for
        which a rent reduction order was issued on December 10,  1990  under
        the above-described docket number.  The  owner  asserted  that  "the
        water-stains on the basement walls were removed on January 3, 1991."

        Thereafter on March 22, 1991, an inspection of the subject apartment 
        was conducted by a DHCR inspector who was  requested  to  find  "any
        evidence of water-stained walls in the basement."  

        Said inspector reported th t  "there  was  evidence  of  dry  water-
        stained walls in the basement"; and that "there was  no  leaking  of
        water in the basement around walls' water pipes."

        The Rent Administrator denied the owner's application on  April  23,
        1991 and continued the rent reduction in effect.

        In its petition for administrative  review,  the  owner  states,  in
        substance, that repairs have been performed and  that  all  services
        are part of normal maintenance.

        In reply, the tenants asserted on June 10, 1991  that  services  had
        not been restored.

        After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
        the petition should be remanded to  the  Administrator  for  further

        The inspection, as basis of the order appealed from, is vague in its 
        report that services were not restored.  The report states "evidence 
        of dry water-stained walls in the basement" and "no leaking in the 
        basement...."  The inspection request was also not  specific  enough
        in asking "Is there any  evidence  of  water-stained  walls  in  the

        Adm. Review Docket No.: FB 630030-RO
        basement."  A "dry water-stained" walls in the basement, absent  any
        leak in the water  pipes  of  the  basement  wall,  is  insufficient
        evidence for denying the owner's application.

        Accordingly,  this  proceeding  on  appeal  is   remanded   to   the
        Administrator to further investigate the structural cause(s) of  the
        water-stains in the basement and to evaluate whether the cause(s) of 
        this water-stain have been completely removed.

        The Commissioner notes that this building has both rent-control  and
        rent-stabilized tenants.  On remand, the Administrator has to adjust 
        its findings according to the status of the tenants in the building.

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

        ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is granted to the 
        extent  of  remanding  this  proceeding   to   the   District   Rent
        Administrator for further processing in accordance with  this  Order
        and Opinion.  The automatic stay of so much  of  the  District  Rent
        Administrator's order as directed repairs  and  a  retroactive  rent
        abatement is hereby continued until  a  new  order  is  issued  upon
        remand.   However,  the  Adminstrator's  determination   as   to   a
        prospective rent abatement is not stayed and shall remain in  effect
        until the Adminstrator issues a new Order upon remand.


                                        ELLIOT SANDER
                                        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