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.:
LANYARD REALTY CO.
c/o BERNARD CHARLES, INC. RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 17, 1986, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
August 13, 1986 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall
Street, Jamaica, New York concerning the housing accommodations
known as 47-49 Greenwich Avenue, New York, New York, Apartment 2.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant
to the issues raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on November 6, 1985 by the owner
filing an application for a rent increase based on the tenant's
installation of two (2) air conditioners n the subject apart-
In response, the tenant asserted that the air conditioners were
already in the apartment when he signed his first lease in 1977
and that he did not consent to an increase.
In answer to the tenant's response, the owner stated:
1. "At no time in our 28 year history of managing
village apartments have we included air con-
ditioning units in a residential apartment.
2. We have no reason to believe that (air condi-
tioner) units were present when the current
tenant took possession.
3. If in fact one or both of the air condi-
tioners were present in the apartment when
(the tenant) took possession, it was worked
out with the prior tenant between the two
tenants without our knowledge or consent."
The owner further asserted that air conditioners were not listed
on the apartment registration among the equipment and services
provided by the owner and included in the rent.
In the herein appealed order, the Rent Administrator determined
that the two air conditioners were in the apartment when the
tenant signed his first lease in 1977 and therefore the provision
of air conditioners was a service covered by the first lease and
all subsequent leases.
In this petition, the owner contends, in substance, that the Rent
Administrator's decision implies that the air conditioners are
abandoned property and is therefore totally without merit since
no inspection was conducted to determine the age of the a r con-
ditioners or their installation date.
The Commissioner is of opinion that this petition should be
Section 2525.2 of the Rent Stabilization Code requires an owner
to maintain services, defined in Section 2520.6 as the services
furnished or required to be furnished to the continuously sta-
bilized housing accommodation on May 31,1968, and all additional
services provided or required to be provided thereafter. The base
date for determining required individual apartment services in
apartments which were either vacancy destabilized or decontrolled
between July 1, 1971 and June 30, 1974 is May 29, 1974.
In this case, the owner applied for a rental increase for two air
conditioners which it asserted were installed by the tenant. In
response, the tenant stated that the air conditioners were in the
apartment when he signed his first lease in 1977. The owner
claims that if the air conditioners were in the subject apartment
when the tenant took occupancy they were left by the prior
tenant. However, it is the owner's responsibility to inspect an
apartment upon its vacancy and dispose of any abandoned property
of a prior tenant. Otherwise, absent specific lease disclaimers,
such property will be considered the property of the owner and
part of the apartment service to be provided any subsequent
tenants. It is noted that a new tenant's decision to rent an
apartment may be partly based on his view of amenities in the
apartment prior to renting, such as air conditioners. When a
former tenant abandons property within an apartment, such
property belongs to the owner. If the owner chooses to leave
such property in the apartment then upon rerenting, it must be
considered to be a service provided by the owner pursuant to the
Rent Stabilization Law and Code. Accordingly, the Re t adminis-
trator correctly found that the provision of two air conditioners
is a required service.
The Commissioner notes that the subject tenant took occupancy of
the subject apartment in 1977 and the owner did not file its
application for a rental increase for the air conditioners until
1985. The Commissioner finds that the owner thereby waived the
right to collect an increase for the air conditioners and the
Rent Administrator properly determined that such an increase was
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, 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