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.: GB630137RO
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP. RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 12, 1992 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued February 4, 1992. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 1590 Metropolitan Avenue, Bronx,
N.Y. The Administrator granted in part the owner's rent
restoration application for 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 May 6, 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. BH610089B had been issued. The Commissioner notes that the
rent was reduced based on findings of defective vents; basement and
stairway steps in need of cleaning; basement walls peeling paint
and plaster and wet basement floor. The Commissioner also notes
that the issue of the defective vents has been deleted by the
Administrator and is no longer an active issue in this proceeding
and that, in Docket No. DD630129OR, the Administrator ordered
partial rent restoration for rent controlled tenants in the
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 27, 1991. The inspector reported that there
was evidence of peeling paint and plaster on the basement walls.
All other services were found to have been maintained.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
February 4, 1992. Rent restoration of $1.50 per month was ordered
for rent controlled tenants. The owner was given leave to refile
for the remaining $1.50 per month when services were fully
restored. The application was denied with regard to rent
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 6, 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. DD630129OR, 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
granted the owner's application in part for rent controlled tenants
and denied the application for rent stabilized tenants.
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
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