GB630021RO/EL630033RO
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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NO.: GB630021RO
EL630063RO
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP. RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: DE630118OR
PETITIONER FE630208OR
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above referenced administrative appeals have been
consolidated as both contain common issues of law and fact.
The above named petitioner-owner filed timely Petitions for
Administrative Review against orders of the Rent Administrator
which concerned various housing accommodations located at 89
Metropolitan Oval, Bronx, N.Y. The Administrator granted in part
the owner's application for rent restoration in Docket No.
DE630118OR and denied the owner's application for rent restoration
in Docket No. FE630208OR.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by these
appeals.
The owner filed an application for rent restoration on March
28, 1989 wherein it alleged that it had restored services for which
a rent reduction order bearing Docket No. BH610104B had been
issued. The application was assigned Docket No. DE630118OR.
The tenants were served with copies of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. Various tenants filed
responses to the application and stated that services had not been
restored.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspection was conducted on May 21, 1990. The
building was reinspected on October 24, 1990. The inspector
reported that there was evidence of peeling paint and plaster on
the basement walls near the back door area. The inspector also
reported that all other services had been restored.
GB630021RO/EL630033RO
The Administrator issued an order on November 16, 1990. With
respect to rent controlled tenants the Administrator granted the
owner's application in part. Rent restoration of $2.00 per month
was ordered based on the inspector's report. The Administrator
advised the owner to refile for the remaining $2.00 per month when
services were fully restored. The application was denied with
respect to rent stabilized tenants.
The owner then refiled for rent restoration. This application
was assigned Docket No. FE630208OR. The owner stated that it had
repaired the basement wall.
The application was served on the tenants and an opportunity
to respond was afforded. A physical inspection of the subject
building was conducted on December 21, 1991 and revealed that the
basement walls had not been repaired and painted.
The Administrator issued an order on January 29, 1992 and
denied the owner's application based on the report of the
inspector.
The owner, represented by counsel, filed appeals from both of
the above described orders. In both appeals the owner states that
the service reported as not being maintained is one requiring
normal maintenance, is promptly attended to and is of a recurring
nature. The owner further states that the work has been completed
but simply recurs and is done again. The petitions was served on
the tenants.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitions should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that although the owner has
characterized the cited condition as normal maintenance and
something which is "promptly attended to" but recurs, the records
reveals that "normal maintenance" did not, in these cases, include
prompt attention to the cited condition between the dates of the
inspections, which were several months apart. In the opinion of
the Commissioner, an item of normal maintenance would have been
corrected within this time span and, if corrected properly, would
not have reappeared. The Commissioner further notes that the
original rent reduction orders and the corresponding inspection
reports in the restoration proceedings cite the same defective
condition at the identical location.
The Commissioner notes that while the owner questions the
findings of fact, the record clearly reflects those findings by
virtue of the DHCR inspections described above. Accordingly, the
Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly determined that
the owner had failed to restore all services based on the evidence
of record, including the results of the on-site physical
inspections of the subject premises. The Administrator correctly
GB630021RO/EL630033RO
denied the rent restoration applications for rent stabilized
tenants, correctly granted the application in part for rent
controlled tenants in Docket No DE630118OR and denied the
application in Docket No. FE630208OR.
This order and opinion is without prejudice to the owner's
right to file a new rent restoration application based upon
restoration of the remaining services. The Commissioner further
notes that the rent reduction proceeding has been remanded to the
Administrator for further processing wherein the issue of whether
a rent reduction was warranted is being reexamined. If the orders
are revoked pursuant to the remand, the rents will be restored as
of the original effective date of the reduction. 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
may have to file new applications to restore based on the
restoration of services cited in the modified rent reduction
orders.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and
Rent and Eviction Regulations it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's orders be, and the same
hereby are, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
