FL630116RO
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.: FL630116RO
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP. RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: FD630159OR
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 23, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued December 18, 1991. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 1563 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 April 19, 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. BH610077B had been issued. The Commissioner notes that,
in Docket No. DD630128OR, the Administrator ordered partial rent
restoration for rent controlled tenants based on finding that all
services had been restored except for the Section "A" and "B"
bulkhead 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 October 16, 1991. The
inspector reported that the bulkhead walls of Sections "A" and "B"
were repaired in an unworkmanlike manner. The Administrator issued
the order here under review on December 18, 1991 and denied the
application based on the inspector's report.
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
FL630116RO
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
January 10, 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 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. DD630128OR, 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
EL630034RO
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
|
