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.: GA630107RO
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 16, 1992. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 1925 McGraw Ave., 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
The owner commenced this proceeding on June 10, 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. BH610098B had been issued. The Commissioner notes that the
rent was reduced based on findings of defective vents, basement
walls peeling paint and plaster , wet basement floor and basement
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, in Docket No. DE610061OR, the Administrator
found that the owner had restored all services except for the
peeling paint and plaster on the basement 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 December 6, 1991. The inspector reported that there
was evidence of peeling paint on the basement walls. The
Administrator issued the order here under review on January 16,
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
March 2, 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. DE610061OR, 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
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.
The Commissioner notes that the owner's reapplication for rent
restoration (Docket No. GB630147OR) has been granted by the
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