FL630013RO

                                  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.:  FL630013RO
                                                  
          PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP.            RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: FF630308OR
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On December 6, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued December 3, 1991. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 2090 East Tremont Ave, Bronx, 
          N.Y.  The Administrator granted in part the owner's application for 
          rent restoration with regard to rent controlled tenants and denied 
          the application with regard to rent stabilized tenants.  

               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 September 27, 1989 by 
          filing an Application for Rent Restoration wherein it alleged that 
          it had restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing 
          Docket No. BH610070B had been issued.  The Commissioner notes that 
          the rents were ordered reduced based on findings of defective 
          vents; basement walls peeling paint and plaster; Section "B" 
          stairwell walls top floor to roof peeling paint and plaster; 
          basement walls require cleaning due to graffiti; and inoperable 
          elevator floor indicators.  The Commissioner notes that the 
          defective vents issue is no longer an active issue in this 
          proceeding. 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 August 29, 1991.  The 
          inspector reported that there was evidence of peeling paint and 
          plaster on the basement walls and that the stairwell walls on the 
          "B" line have not been painted.  All other services were reported 
          to have been restored.













          FL630013RO

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          December 3, 1991.  With respect to rent controlled tenants the 
          Administrator granted the owner's application in part.  Rent 
          restoration of $6.00 per month was ordered based on the inspector's 
          report.  The Administrator advised the owner to refile for the 
          remaining $1.00 per month when services were fully restored.  The 
          application was denied with respect to rent stabilized tenants.

               On appeal the owner, 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.  The petition was served on 
          the tenants on January 3, 1992. 

               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 conditions.  In the opinion of the 
          Commissioner, an item of normal maintenance would have been 
          corrected within the time span between the issuance of the rent 
          reduction order and the commencement of the rent restoration 
          proceeding.  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 for rent stabilized tenants 
          and correctly granted the application in part for rent controlled 
          tenants.

               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 






          FL630013RO

          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.

          ISSUED:



                                                                             
                                             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