STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  GD630019RO
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: FG630087OR

               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 

               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.


               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 

               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 

               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 

               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.


                                             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