BD 210572 RO
                                  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 210572 RO
                                                  
                     ERNEST JEREMIAS,
                                                 D.R.O. DOCKET NO.: ZAC 210228-S

                                PETITIONER
          ----------------------------------X



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On April 8,  1987,  the  above  named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on
          March 4, 1987, by the District Rent  Administrator,  92-31  Union
          Hall Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning housing accommodations 
          known as Apartment 4E, 2302  85th  Street,  Brooklyn,  New  York,
          wherein the  District  Rent  Administrator  determined  that  the
          owner had failed to provide services warranting a rent reduction.

          The  issue  in  this  appeal  is  whether   the   District   Rent
          Administrator's order was warranted.

          The applicable section of the law is Section 2523.4 of  the  Rent
          Stabilization Code.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in  the  record
          and has carefully considered that portion of the record  relevant
          to the issue raised by the administrative appeal.

          This proceeding was commenced on March 1, 1985, by  the  tenant's
          filing of an Individual Tenant Statement of Complaint wherein the 
          tenant  contended  in  substance  that  the   subject   apartment
          contained storm windows and screens when she moved in  on  August
          1, 1975, and that in  the  past  year  the  owner  installed  new
          thermal  windows  throughout  the  entire  building,  but  didn't
          replace the screens.

          In his answer to the tenant's complaint, the owner  contended  in
          substance  that  he  had   owned   the   subject   building   for
          approximately thirty years, screens were never supplied to any of 
          the tenants, new windows were recently installed  in  the  entire
          building without screens, and the original registration  for  the
          subject apartment did not list screens.

          In Docket Number ZAC 210228-S issued March 4, 1987, the  District
          Rent Administrator  determined  that  the  owner  had  failed  to
          provide  the  subject  apartment   with   window   screens,   and






          BD 210572 RO
          accordingly reduced the rent of the subject apartment.

          In this petition,  the  owner  contends  in  substance  that  new
          windows without screens were  installed  throughout  the  subject
          building, and that since 1966 screens have never been part of the 
          services provided to the building.

          The tenant did not submit a response to the owner's petition.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition  should  be
          denied.

          A review of the record in the instant case reveals that the owner 
          received a rent increase on December 16, 1965  when  the  subject
          apartment was rent controlled for the installation of seven storm 
          windows and screens in the subject apartment pursuant  to  Docket
          Number 2AC 203814.   Accordingly,  the  Commissioner  rejects  as
          disingenuous the  owner's  allegation  that  screens  were  never
          supplied to the tenants during his thirty years of  ownership  of
          the subject premises, and finds that screens are a service  which
          the owner is required to maintain,  and  that  the  Administrator
          correctly reduced the rent  of  the  subject  apartment  for  the
          owner's failure to provide window screens.

          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 District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed.



          ISSUED:



                                                  ------------------------
                                                  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