EL630027RO
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.: EL630027RO
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP. RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: DD610127OR
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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 1440 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
appeal.
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 and plaster on the basement walls, stairwell walls of Section
"A" on second floor peeling paint, stairwell walls of Sections "A"
and "B" waterstained and graffiti on Section "A" bulkhead walls of
second, sixth and seventh floors. 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 on the basement walls. All other services were found to
have been maintained.
EL630027RO
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
November 20, 1990. Rent restoration of $3.00 per month was ordered
for rent controlled tenants. The owner was given leave to refile
for the remaining $1.00 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 22, 1991. One tenant filed a response on February 7, 1989
but the response was not relevant to the issues raised in the
application.
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
EL630027RO
file new applications to restore based on the restoration of
services cited in the modified rent reduction orders.
The Commissioner notes that the owner has reapplied for rent
restoration and that said reapplication have been granted by the
Administrator in orders bearing Docket Nos. EL630231OR and
FF630146OR.
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
|
