STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: GA630104RO
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP. RENT
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 7, 1992. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 1491 West Avenue, Bronx, N.Y.
The Administrator granted the owner's application for rent
restoration in part with regard to rent controlled tenants and
denied the application with regard to rent stabilized tenants.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The owner commenced this proceeding on June 24, 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. BH610113B had been issued. The Commissioner notes that the
rents were ordered reduced based on findings of basement walls
waterstained; discolored, blistered and peeling paint and plaster
and waterstained Section "B" stairwell walls between first floor
and mezzanine. 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 11, 1991. The
inspector reported that the basement walls had not been painted but
that all other services were restored.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
January 7, 1992. Rent restoration of $1.00 per month was ordered
for rent controlled tenants with the owner given leave to refile
for the remaining $1.00 when services are fully restored. The
application was denied with regard to rent stabilized tenants.
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 April 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. In the opinion of the
Commissioner, an item of normal maintenance would have been
permanently corrected within the more than three year time period
since the rent reduction order was issued. 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 inspection
of the subject premises. The Administrator correctly denied the
rent restoration application for rent stabilized tenants and
correctly granted the application in part for rent controlled
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
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