GA630089RO
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.: GA630089RO
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP. RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: FD630211OR
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 22, 1992 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued January 16, 1992. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 1596 Unionport Road, 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 22, 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. BH610066B had been issued. The Commissioner notes that
the rents were ordered reduced based on findings of defective
vents; basement in need of cleaning; peeling paint and plaster on
basement walls; wall throughout Sections "A" and "B" are
discolored, waterstained, cracked, blistered and peeling paint and
plaster; waterstained floors throughout Sections "A" and "B";
graffiti on Section "B" walls and Section "B" steps waterstained
and in need of cleaning. The Commissioner further notes that the
issue of the defective vents is no longer an active issue in this
proceeding and that the owner was granted partial rent restoration
in an order bearing Docket No. DI630015OR. 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 November 18, 1991. The
inspector reported that there was evidence of peeling paint and
plaster on the Section "B" bulkhead walls. The Administrator issued
the order here under review on January 16, 1992 and denied the
GA630089RO
application.
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. The petition was served on the
tenants on March 16, 1992.
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 dates of the
inspection in this proceeding and those conducted in accordance
with Docket No. DI630015OR, which were more than one year 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 reports 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 services. 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.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and
Rent and Eviction Regulations it is
GA630089RO
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
|
