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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  EL630024RO
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: DD610127OR

               On December 6, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued November 20, 1990. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 1420 Wood Road, Bronx, N.Y.  The 
          Administrator granted the owner's rent restoration application in 
          part 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 7, 1990 by filing 
          an Application for Rent Restoration wherein it alleged that it had 
          restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing Docket 
          No. BH610108B had been issued.  The Commissioner notes that the 
          rent was reduced based on findings of defective vents, peeling 
          paint on the basement walls, evidence of waterstains on stairwell 
          walls and floors of Section "B", bulkhead walls of Section "A" are 
          cracked and peeling paint and stairwell walls of Section "A" on 
          first, second, eighth and ninth floors have peeling paint.  The 
          Commissioner also notes that the issue of the defective vents has 
          been deleted by the Administrator 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 
          25, 1990. The inspector reported that there was peeling paint and 
          plaster throughout the basement walls as well as peeling paint and 
          plaster on the Section "A" bulkhead walls.  All other services were 


          found to have been maintained.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          November 20, 1990.  Rent restoration of $1.00 per month was ordered 
          for rent controlled tenants.  The owner was given leave to refile 
          for the remaining $2.00 per month when services were fully 
          restored.  The application was denied with regard to rent 
          stabilized tenants.

               On appeal the owner, as 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 30, 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 
          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.

               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's reapplication for rent 
          restoration, which was assigned Docket No. FG630086OR, has been 
          granted by the Administrator.

               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