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.: BD 110079-RT
:
DRO DOCKET NO.: 38581
SHARON FERNANDEZ,
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
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
registration.
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
hereinabove.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal should be
granted.
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
service.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
