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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  FJ630006RO
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: FC630148OR

               On October 2, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued September 24, 1991. The order concerned 
          various housing accommodations located at 1600 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 March 20, 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 
          floor, stairway walls and steps in need of cleaning and basement 
          walls peeling paint and plaster and wet basement floor.  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 found that all services except the basement wall had 
          been restored.

               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 9, 1991.  The inspector reported that there was 
          evidence of peeling paint and plaster on the basement walls.
               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          September 24, 1991 and denied the application.


               On appeal the owner, as represented by counsel, 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 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 
          November 12, 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 condition 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 condition between the dates of the 
          inspections in Docket No. DD630129OR and this proceeding, which 
          were one year 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 order 
          and the corresponding inspection reports in the restoration 
          proceedings cite the same defective condition at the identical 

               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 inspection 
          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
                                             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