STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: FH630263RO
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP. RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 30, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued August 26, 1991. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 1594 Metropolitan Avenue, Bronx,
N.Y. The Administrator denied the owner's rent restoration
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The owner commenced this proceeding on January 14, 1991 by
filing an Application for Rent Restoration wherein it alleged that
it had restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing
Docket No. BH610089B had been issued. The Commissioner notes that
the rent was reduced based on findings of defective vents; basement
requiring cleaning; and basement walls having graffiti and peeling
paint and plaster. The Commissioner also notes that the issue of
the defective vents has been deleted by the Administrator and is no
longer an active issue in this proceeding and that, in Docket No.
DD630129OR, the Administrator granted the owner's rent restoration
application in part for rent controlled tenants in the building
based on the restoration all services except the basement walls.
The tenants were served with copies of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The Administrator ordered a
physical inspection of the subject building. The inspection was
conducted on June 20, 1991. The inspector reported that there was
evidence of peeling paint and plaster and graffiti on the basement
walls. The Administrator issued the order here under review on
August 26, 1991 and denied the application based on the inspector's
On appeal the owner, as represented by counsel, states that
the services reported as not being maintained are ones requiring
normal maintenance, are promptly attended to and are of a recurring
nature. The owner further states that the work has been completed
but simply recurs and is done again and that the conditions cited
in the rent reduction and rent restoration orders are at different
physical locations. The petition was served on the tenants on
september 17, 1991.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, 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" but recurs, the record
reveals that "normal maintenance" did not, in this case, include
prompt attention to the cited conditions between the dates of the
inspection in this proceeding and those conducted in accordance
with Docket No. DD630129OR, which were more than one year apart.
In the opinion of the Commissioner, items 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 order 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 application.
The Commissioner 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 this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA