GA630104RO

                                  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.:  GA630104RO
                                                  
          PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP.            RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: FF630270OR
                                  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 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 
          appeal.

               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.












          GA630104RO

               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 
          tenants.

               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 
               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 






          GA630104RO

          hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                             
                                             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