ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. ARL 11919 Q
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.:
ARL 11919 Q
:
D.R.O. DOCKET NO.:
AA 120717 S
JRD MANAGEMENT
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN PART, MODIFYING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER,
AND REMANDING PROCEEDING
On July 16, 1986, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on June 11,
1986 by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing
accommodations known as Apartment No. 4-C, 155-01 90th Avenue,
Jamaica, New York, wherein the Administrator reduced the maximum
legal rent for the subject rent controlled apartment by $40.50
per month.
The Commissioner has reviewed the evidence of record and
has carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues
raised in the administrative appeal.
The record reveals that the tenant commenced this proceeding
on January 30, 1986 by filing a complaint of decrease in services
in which she alleged that the new windows installed by the owner
in July 1984 are inferior to the old windows and were not
installed properly. She also claims that she no longer has storm
windows and screens for which she was charged a rent increase 15
years ago.
In answer to the complaint, the owner asserted that the
tenant is complaining about a major capital improvement rent
increase which was charged to all tenants until the owner was
informed that rent controlled tenants did not have to pay this
increase. The owner claimed that all necessary adjustments have
been made.
The Administrator then issued the order appealed herein
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. ARL 11919 Q
reducing the tenant's rent by $40.50 per month consisting of
$1.50 times nine (9) for missing storm windows, $1.00 times nine
(9) for missing screens and $2.00 times nine (9) for air seepage.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner seeks
reversal of the order, claiming that it is unduly punitive, given
the fact that substantial sums were invested in the installation
of energy efficient thermal windows for which the tenant herein
was never charged. The owner adds that the air seepage is a
minor caulking problem and that no screens were ever provided but
this tenant had her own screens that were reinstalled where they
were.
In answer to the petition, the tenant claims that the new
windows are difficult to open and have improper moldings that
permit water and air seepage. The tenant states that no
inspector ever came to her apartment to check the windows and
that her old screens were not reinstalled because they did not
fit, but new screens were offered to her after the
Administrator's order was issued.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petition should be granted in part.
The Division's records, including the Rent Registration Card
for the subject rent-controlled apartment, reveal that on August
9, 1967, (Docket No. 2AC 147432) the tenant commenced paying a
rent increase of $4.50 per month for nine (9) sets of storm and
screen windows, establishing that this is equipment that the
owner is required to continue to provide. The Commissioner
finds, however, that with the installation of thermal windows,
storm windows were no longer necessary and a rent reduction for
missing storm windows is not warranted. Similarly, the rent
reduction for air seepage is also not warranted in the absence of
an inspection confirming this condition. The proceeding is
therefore remanded to the Administrator for a physical inspection
to investigate this problem and to order an appropriate rent
reduction if the inspection reveals air or water seepage or
defects in the installation or operation of the windows.
The owner denies that screens are a required service while
the Division's records reveal otherwise and the tenant denies
that the screens were reinstalled. Accordingly, the rent
reduction for missing screens is warranted and the
Administrator's order is modified to order a $9.00 per month rent
reduction ($1.00 for each of 9 screens).
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction
Regulations for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is
granted in part and the Administrator's order be and the same
hereby is modified to order a rent reduction of $9.00 per month,
rather than $40.50 per month, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that the proceeding be remanded to the
Administrator for further processing in accordance with this
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. ARL 11919 Q
order and opinion.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
