STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NO.:  GB630021RO
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: DE630118OR
                                  PETITIONER           FE630208OR

               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 

               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 

               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. 


               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 

               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 


          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 

               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.


                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             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