GA630090RO
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.:
GA630090RO
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP.,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER FF630304OR
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 22, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order of the
Rent Administrator issued on January 16, 1992, by the Rent
Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations located at
1565 Odell Street, Bronx, New York, various apartments, wherein the
Rent Administrator determined that the legal regulated rent of rent
controlled apartments was to be partially restored in the amount of
$8.00 per month plus all lawful increases granted subsequent to the
order of January 27, 1989, which reduced the rent of all regulated
apartments in the subject building. The Rent Administrator denied
the owner's rent restoration applications for rent stabilized
apartments. The orders of partial rent restoration were made
effective the first day of the month following the issuance date of
the orders.
The commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issue raised by the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly denied
the owner full rent restorations for rent controlled and rent sta-
bilized apartments.
The owner commenced this proceeding on March 29, 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. BH610086B had been issued. The tenants were served with copies
of the application and afforded an opportunity to respond.
GA630090RO
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspection was conducted on September 5, 1991. The
inspector reported that the bulkhead walls of Sections A and B
evidenced graffiti and further found peeling paint and plaster on
the bulkhead walls of Section B.
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 and that there is not an
identity of location between the conditions cited in the inspection
reports for the rent reduction proceeding and those of the rent
restoration proceeding.
The petition was served on the tenants on February 28, 1992, but
the tenants did not file answers to the petition.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the Commis-
sioner 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 Docket No. BH610086B. The in-
spections were conducted almost three years apart. In the opinion
of the Commissioner, an item 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
report in the restoration proceedings cite the same defective
conditions at the identical location. The owner's application to
restore rent certified that the walls of Section A & B were
completely painted on January 27, 1989.
The Commissioner notes that while the owner questions the findings
of fact, the record clearly reflects those findings by virtue of
the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (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.
GA630090RO
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.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and the
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
|
