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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  FL630116RO
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: FD630159OR

               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 

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 

               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 


          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 


               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