FJ630006RO
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.: FJ630006RO
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP. RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: FC630148OR
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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
application.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
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.
FJ630006RO
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
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 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
FJ630006RO
hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
