Adm. Review Docket No.: FB 630030-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.: FE 630030-RO
:
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP., DRO DOCKET NOS.:
FB 630023-OR/ BH 610093-B
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
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
consideration.
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.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
