GA630107RO

                                  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.:  GA630105RO
                                                  
          PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP.            RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: FD630181OR
                                  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 6, 1992. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 1560 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, 1992 by 
          filing an Application for Rent Restoration wherein it alleged that 
          it had restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing 
          Docket No. BH610065B had been issued.  The Commissioner notes that 
          the rents were reduced based on findings of defective vents; 
          Section "A" sixth floor stairwell door does not self close; 
          graffiti on bulkhead walls of Section "A" first and second floors 
          and on fifth floor stairway wall of Section "B"; basement walls 
          peeling paint and plaster , waterstained and discolored; Section 
          "B" fifth floor stairwell walls peeling paint and plaster; and 
          peeling paint and plaster on bulkhead walls of Section "A" due to 
          water leak. The Commissioner further notes that the issue of the 
          defective vents is no longer an active issue in this proceeding and 
          that, in Docket No. DG630150OR, the Administrator found that the 
          owner had restored all services except for the Section "A" bulkhead 
          walls. 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 the Section "A" bulkhead walls had not been 
          painted.  The Administrator issued the order here under review on 












          GA630107RO

          January 6, 1992 and denied the application based on the inspector's 
          report.

               On appeal the owner, as 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 the conditions cited 
          in the rent reduction and rent restoration orders are at different 
          physical locations.  The petition was served on the tenants on 
          April 14, 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 in Docket No. DG610150OR, 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.

               The Commissioner 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 






          EL630034RO


               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
                                     
             






    

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