ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: GA 630015 RO & GB 630068 RO
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 NOS.:
GA630015RO
GB630068RO
: RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP./ DOCKET NOS.:
AMIT SIKDAR, FF630302OR
FF630303OR
: SUBJECT PREMISES:
2051 and 2059
PETITIONER Saint Raymond Ave.,
------------------------------------X Bronx, NY
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN
PART AND MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDERS
The above-named owner filed timely petitions for
administrative review of the Administrator's orders issued on
December 30, 1991 and January 30, 1992 concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above-described docket numbers.
These petitions are consolidated because they involve common issues
of law and fact.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issues raised by the petitions.
On April 26, 1991, the owner commenced proceedings under
Docket Nos. FF630302OR and FF630303OR by applying for rent
restoration, asserting that the vent system is operating properly,
that the basement hallway walls which exit to the courtyard and
stairwell walls on first floor to the basement have been plastered
and painted, that all elevator indicators have been cleaned and are
operative, that the basement walls have been painted to cover
graffiti, that the stairwell steps have been cleaned, that the
stairwell to the roof on the "A" line has been painted and that the
"B" line seventh floor underneath stairway has been plastered and
painted.
In or about May 1991, various tenants answered the owner's
applications and in substance asserted the continued existence of
defective conditions.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: GA 630015 RO & GB 630068 RO
Thereafter, physical inspections of the subject buildings were
conducted by DHCR staff.
In respect to 2051 Saint Raymond Avenue, the inspector
reported on September 10, 1991 that the basement hallway walls
near the exit to the courtyard are peeling plaster; that the
stairwell walls on the first floor to the basement level are
peeling paint and plaster; and that the elevator floor indicators
are inoperative.
In respect to 2059 Saint Raymond Avenue, the inspector
reported on August 30, 1991 that there is graffiti writing on the
basement walls; and that the elevator floor indicators are not
operative.
The Administrator issued on December 30, 1991 an order under
Docket Number FF 630302 OR based on a September 10, 1991 physical
inspection of 2051 Saint Raymond Avenue, and on January 30, 1992 an
order under Docket Number FF630303OR based on an August 30, 1991
physical inspection of 2059 Saint Raymond Avenue. The
Administrator denied the rent restoration applications for all
rent-stabilized tenants; and partially restored the rents for all
rent-controlled tenants in the amount of $4.00 per month.
In the petitions, the owner requests reversal, alleging that
the services in issue are normal maintenance, are promptly attended
to, are of a recurring nature and that there is not an identity of
location of the alleged conditions.
In answer, various tenants denied the owner's allegations and
otherwise asserted that defective conditions continue to exist.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petitions should be granted in part and the
Administrator's orders modified accordingly.
With regard to the issue of the elevator, the Commissioner
acknowledges that enforcement of applicable standards regarding
elevator operation and safety is under the jurisdiction of the New
York City Department of Buildings, which has long established
comprehensive procedures and inspection programs in place. The
staff engaged in carrying out these inspections has the necessary
technical expertise to conduct periodic inspections; to interpret
and apply relevant codes, regulations and industry standards; and
to issue violations. Further, in view of the City's greater
experience with elevator enforcement, the City is in a better
position than DHCR to determine appropriate performance standards
and ancillary equiptment for elevators of varying age and
manufacture.
Accordingly, the relevant inquiry is whether the Department of
Buildings has issued violations for the elevators in the subject
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: GA 630015 RO & GB 630068 RO
building during the period when the proceeding was before DHCR. The
Commissioner notes that on January 25, 1991, September 16, 1991 and
June 25, 1992, an elevator inspector of the Department of Buildings
conducted an inspection of the elevators in 2051 Saint Raymond Ave.
and found no violation. On January 25, 1991, September 11, 1991
and June 17, 1992, the inspector found no violation in 2059 Saint
Raymond Ave. Based on these inspections, the Commissioner finds
that elevator services were restored at those times and that the
rent for rent-controlled tenants should be restored by $2.00 per
month.
Athough the owner has characterized the cited conditions as
normal maintenance and something which is "promptly attended to,"
the record reveals that "normal maintenance" did not, in this case,
include prompt attention to the cited conditions which were already
pointed out in or about May 1991 by the tenants answering the
owner's applications and which were confirmed by physical
inspections four or five months before the issuance of the orders
appealed from. In the opinion of the Commissioner, items of normal
maintenance would have been corrected within this time span.
The Commissioner further notes that the original rent
reduction orders and the inspection reports cite the same defective
conditions at the identical locations. At 2051 Saint Raymond
Avenue, the basement hallway walls near the exit to the courtyard
are peeling plaster; the stairwell walls on the 1st floor to the
basement level are peeling paint and plaster; and the elevator
floor indicators are inoperative. At 2059 Saint Raymond Avenue,
there is graffiti writing on the basement walls and the elevator
floor indicators are not operative.
The owner's contention that the cited conditions are of a
recurring nature is not only insufficient reason to disturb the
Administrator's orders, but in the opinion of the Commissioner, is
reason a fortiori to affirm the orders. During the proceedings
under review, conditions recurred between the filing of the
application and the inspections. Defective conditions recurring
with such alacrity should put the owner on notice that his
maintenance procedures have not been sufficient to maintain the
premises adequately.
It is also noted that the rent reduction proceedings have been
remanded to the Administrator for further processing wherein the
issue of whether a rent reduction was warranted is being re-
examined. If the orders are revoked pursuant to the remand, the
rents will be restored ab initio. 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
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: GA 630015 RO & GB 630068 RO
will have to file new applications to restore based on the
restoration of services cited in the modified rent reduction
orders.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are,
granted in part, and that the Administrator's orders be, and the
same hereby are, modified in accordance with this Order and
Opinion.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
