GD630019RO
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.: GD630019RO
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP. RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: FG630087OR
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 7, 1992 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued April 2, 1992. The order concerned various
housing accommodations located at 1935 McGraw Avenue, Bronx, N.Y.
The Administrator granted in part the owner's application for rent
restoration 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 July 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. BH610097B had been issued. The Commissioner notes that the
Administrator ordered partial rent restoation for rent controlled
tenants in Docket No. DD610133OR. The Administrator found that the
owner had restored all services except for peeling paint and
plaster on the basement walls near the compactor room and peeling
paint and plaster on the bulkhead walls of Sections "A" and "B".
The owner's application herein states that the two remaining
conditions had been corrected. 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 February 21, 1992. The
inspector reported that there was evidence of peeling paint and
plaster on the north and south bulkhead walls of Section "B" and
that the bulkhead walls of Section "A" have been plastered and
painted in an unworkmanlike manner. The inspector also reported
that the condition regard the basement walls had been corrected.
GD630019RO
The Administrator issued the order here under review on April
2, 1992. With respect to rent controlled tenants the Administrator
granted the owner's application in part. Rent restoration of $1.00
per month was ordered based on the inspector's report. The
Administrator advised the owner to refile for the remaining $1.00
per month when services were fully restored. The application was
denied with respect to rent stabilized tenants.
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 20, 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
inspections in this proceeding and Docket No. DD610133OR, 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 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
GD630019RO
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. GK630145OR) is pending before the DHCR.
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.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|