ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: GA 630015 RO & GB 630068 RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NOS.:              
                                              :  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S        
          PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP./          DOCKET NOS.:                
                              AMIT SIKDAR,       FF630302OR 
                                              :  SUBJECT PREMISES:           
                                                 2051 and 2059 
                              PETITIONER         Saint Raymond Ave.,
          ------------------------------------X  Bronx, NY                   


               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 

               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 

               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 

               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 

               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 

               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 


                                          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