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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  EL630016RO
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: DD610123OR

               On December 7, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued November 16, 1990. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 1718 Purdy Street, Bronx, N.Y.  
          The Administrator granted in part the owner's rent restoration 
          application with regard to rent controlled tenants and denied the 
          owner's rent restoration application with regard to rent stabilized 

               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 25, 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. BH610074B had been issued.  The Commissioner notes that 
          the rent was reduced based on findings of defective vents, 
          stairwell walls of "A" and "B" lines from top floor to roof with 
          peeling paint and plaster and inoperable elevator floor indicators. 
          The Commissioner also notes that the issue of the defective vents 
          has been deleted by the Administrator in an amended rent reduction 
          order and is no longer an active issue in this proceeding. 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 June 1, 1990.  The 
          building was reinspected on October 29, 1990.  The inspector 
          reported that there is evidence peeling paint and plaster on the 
          bulkhead walls of both "A" and "B" sections.  The inspector also 


          reported that the elevator floor indicators were operative.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          November 16, 1990.  Rent restoration of $2.00 per month was granted 
          for rent controlled tenants with the owner given leave to refile 
          for the remaining $4.00 per month when services were fully 
          restored.  The application was denied with regard to 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 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 
          January 9, 1991.  

               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 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 conditions between the dates of the 
          inspections, 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 proceedings cite the same defective 
          conditions at the identical locations.

               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.

                 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.

               The Commissioner notes that the owner reapplied for rent 
          restoration and that said reapplication, which was assigned Docket 
          No. FD630187OR, was granted in part by the Administrator.  A 
          further reapplication, which was assigned Docket No. GE630151OR, 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