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

     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: BD 110079-RT
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: 38581
                           PETITIONER    : 


     On  April  17,   1987   the   above-named   petitioner-tenant   filed   an
     Administrative Appeal against an order issued on  April  8,  1987  by  the
     District Rent Administrator, 10  Columbus  Circle,  New  York,  New  York,
     concerning  the  housing  accommodations  known  as  196-68  69th  Avenue,
     Flushing, New York, Apartment 1.

     The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to  the  provisions
     of 9 NYCRR 2520.6(r) and 9 NYCRR 2528.2.

     The issue herein is  whether  the  District  Rent  Administrator  properly
     determined the tenant's objection  to  the  1984  apartment  rent/services

     A review of the record indicates that on September 21,  1984,  the  tenant
     filed a timely objection to the 1984 apartment rent/services  registration
     wherein she claimed, in pertinent part, that the owner  had  neglected  to
     include that it supplies window blinds.

     On November 25, 1986, the Division mailed a copy of the tenant's objection 
     to the owner who responded on December 3, 1986, in  pertinent  part,  that
     blinds may have been supplied thirty-five years ago upon the first  rental
     of the apartments, but  the  owner  has  not  supplied  blinds  or  window
     treatments since that time.

     On December 11, 1986, the Division mailed a copy of the  owner's  response
     to the tenant who replied on December 23,  1986,  in  pertinent  part,  by
     enclosing a copy of a letter dated January 28, 1986 written by  the  owner
     and addressed to the Division in connection with the processing of another 
     tenant's objection, wherein the owner stated that  "blinds  were  supplied
     where none existed for a new tenant only.  Blinds were  not  replaced  but
     repaired only when necessary and when not  due  to  tenant's  negligence."
     The tenant  asserted  that  in  this  letter  the  owner  contradicts  his
     statement of December 3, 1986 in that the owner admits that he does supply 
     blinds and makes repairs on some  when  necessary.   The  tenants  further
     stated that as  a  matter  of  fact,  blinds  were  replaced  with  either
     reconditioned or new ones every three years at the time of a paint job.


          DOCKET NUMBER: BD 110079-RT
     On January 22, 1987, the Division mailed a copy of the  tenant's  December
     23, 1986 reply to the owner who responded on February 27,  1987  by  again
     stating that blinds may have been supplied thirty-five years ago upon  the
     first rental of the apartment, but that blinds or window  treatments  have
     not been supplied since then.

     On April 8,  1987,  the  District  Rent  Administrator  issued  the  order
     appealed herein.  The District Rent Administrator's order  determined,  in
     pertinent part, that blinds are not provided by the owner  as  a  service.
     It was noted in the order that on January 22, 1987, a copy of the  owner's
     answer was mailed to the tenant; that the tenant failed  to  respond;  and
     that based on the tenant's failure to refute the  owner's  answer,  it  is
     determined that the provision of blinds by the owner is not a service.

     On appeal, the petitioner-tenant alleges,  in  substance,  that  when  she
     moved into her apartment in 1974, she was supplied with  new  blinds;  and
     that an inspector would prove her claim to blinds.  The  tenant  submitted
     with her complaint a copy of her December 23, 1986 response which includes 
     the owner's letter of January  28,  1986,  both  of  which  are  described

     After a careful  consideration  of  the  entire  evidence  of  record  the
     Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative  appeal  should  be

     The  District  Rent  Administrator's  determination  was  based  upon  the
     tenant's failure to respond to a notice  allegedly  sent  to  her  by  the
     Division on January 22, 1987 requesting her reply to the  owner's  answer.
     A review of the record reveals, however, that on  January  22,  1987,  the
     only notice mailed by the Division in connection with  the  processing  of
     the proceeding was to the owner asking for  a  response  to  the  tenant's
     answer of December 23, 1986.  The District Rent Administrator's finding on 
     whether blinds are an owner-provided service is therefore not supported by 
     the evidence of record.  On the contrary, the evidence  submitted  by  the
     tenant, specifically a letter dated January 28,  1986  wherein  the  owner
     admits that it did supply and repair blinds, supports the  tenant's  claim
     that the provision of blinds is a service  provided  by  the  owner  which
     should have been included on the apartment registration.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law 
     and Code, it is

     ORDERED, that this administrative appeal  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
     granted, and that the order of the District Rent Administrator be, and the 
     same hereby is, modified to  provide  that  blinds  is  an  owner-provided


                                            ELLIOT SANDER
                                          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