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.: GB630291RO
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 3, 1992. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 1314 Virginia Avenue, 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. BH610109B had been issued. The Commissioner notes that the
rents were ordered reduced based on findings of defective vents;
parts of basement walls in need of painting; waterstained stairwell
walls of Section "A" and "B"; part of mezzanine wall of Section "A"
as well as fourth and fifth floors in need of painting; second and
thrid floor walls of Section "B" cracked and graffiti on third
floor walls of Section "B". 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. DC610163OR, the rents were
ordered restored for all conditions except 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 23, 1991. The
inspector reported that there was evidence of peeling paint and
waterstains on the basement walls. The Administrator issued the
order here under review on February 3, 1992 and denied the
application based on the inspector's report.
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 10, 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 in Docket No. DC610163OR,
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.
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