GA630240RO
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.: GA630240RO
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP. RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: FD630212OR
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 30, 1992 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued January 23, 1992. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 2160 East Tremont Ave., Bronx,
N.Y. The Administrator denied the owner's rent restoration
application.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
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. BH610071B 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 October 25, 1991. The
inspector reported evidence of peeling and blistering paint on
bulkhead walls of Sections A & B.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
January 23, 1992 and denied the owner's application based on the
report of the inspector.
On appeal the owner, 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 there is not an identity
of location between the conditions cited in the inspection reports
GA630240RO
for the rent reduction proceeding and those of the rent restoration
proceeding. The petition was served on the tenants on February 12,
1992.
Two tenants filed responses to the petition but neither
response was pertinent to the issue of the restoration of the
bulkhead walls.
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 condition 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 condition between the inspection
carried out in this proceeding and the inspections of the bulkhead
areas carried out in the rent restoration proceeding bearing Docket
No. DD610120OR. The inspections in that proceeding were carried out
in June, 1990 and October, 1990. In the opinion of the
Commissioner, an item of normal maintenance would have been
corrected within this time and, if corrected properly, would not
have reappeared only a year later. The Commissioner further notes
that the original rent reduction order and the corresponding
inspection report 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.
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 service. The Commissioner further
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.
GA630240RO
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.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
