STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: EL630032RO
PARKCHESTER MANAGEMENT CORP. RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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 1722 Purdy Street, Bronx, N.Y.
The Administrator denied the owner's rent restoration application.
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, basement
in need of cleaning and basement walls which have peeling paint and
plaster. 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 the basement was not clean and that there was
evidence of peeling paint and plaster on the basement walls.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
November 16, 1990 and denied the application based on the
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. One tenant filed a response and stated that the
owner's allegations could not be confirmed or denied.
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. FD630012OR, was granted in part 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