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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  GA630240RO
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: FD630212OR

               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 

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 

               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 


          for the rent reduction proceeding and those of the rent restoration 
          proceeding.  The petition was served on the tenants on February 12, 

               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 


               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.


                                             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