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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  EL630015RO
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: DI630009OR


               On December 7, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued November 28, 1990. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 1940 East Tremont Ave., Bronx, 
          N.Y.  The Administrator granted in part the owner's rent 
          restoration application 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 April 21, 1989 by 
          filing an Application for Rent Restoration wherein it alleged that 
          it had restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing 
          Docket No. BH610067B had been issued wherein the owner was directed 
          to repair the elevator indicators, peeling paint and plaster in the 
          basement hallway walls and the stairwell walls from the first floor 
          to the basement on the A line.  The defective vents condition was 
          subsequently deleted as a basis for the rent reduction in an 
          amended order.  The tenants were served with copies of the 
          application  and afforded an opportunity to respond.  One tenant 
          filed a response on November 22, 1989, however the response was not 
          pertinent regarding the issue of whether or not the owner had 
          restored services.

               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspection was conducted on June 4, 1990. The 
          building was reinspected on October 30, 1990.  The inspector 
          reported that the elevator floor indicators were operational.  
          However, the bulkhead walls of Section A were reported to have 


          peeling paint and the basement walls had peeling paint and plaster.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          November 28, 1990.  Rent restoration of $2.00 per month was granted 
          for rent controlled tenants.  The owner was advised to refile for 
          the remaining $2.00 per month when services had been completely 
          restored.  Rent restoration was denied for rent stabilized tenants.

               On appeal the owner, represented by counsel, states that the 
          services reported as not being maintained are ones requiring normal 
          maintenance, are promptly attended to and are 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 December 24, 1990.

               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted 
          in part and the Rent Administrator's order should be modified.

               A review of the  rent reduction order reveals that the owner 
          was directed to repair the peeling paint and plaster on the 
          basement walls and the stairwell walls from "1st floor to basement 
          on the A line." The finding of peeling paint and plaster on the 
          bulkhead walls is not within the purview of the conditions the 
          owner was directed to restore.

               The inspector did find peeling paint and plaster on the 
          basement walls and although the owner has characterized the cited 
          conditions 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, which were 
          several months 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 
          proceeding both cite the same defective condition at the identical 
          location--peeling paint and plaster on the basement walls and for 
          this condition rent restoration is not warranted.

                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.  For rent controlled tenants, the 
          Administrator's order is hereby modified to order rent restoration 
          in the amount of $4.00 per month effective December 1, 1990, ($2.00 
          for repair of the elevator indicators and $2.00 for repair of the 
          peeling paint and plaster in the stairwell walls).


               The Commissioner notes that the owner has reapplied for rent 
          restoration.  In Docket No FD630185OR the Administrator ordered a 
          $1.00 per month rent restoration for rent controlled tenants and 
          denied the application for rent stabilized tenants.  In Docket No. 
          GJ630047OR the Administrator granted the application, restored the 
          remaining $1.00 per month for rent controlled tenants and granted 
          rent restoration for rent stabilized tenants.  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 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 as modified herein.


                                             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