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