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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:              
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     FF630304OR


          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.


          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 


          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 


                                                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