BF 230035 RT
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK   11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: BF 230035 RT

                    JOSEPH SKOWRONSKI,
                                                  DRO DOCKET NO.: ZAD 230142 OM



          On June 11, 1987,  the  above-named  petitioner-tenant  filed  an
          Administrative Appeal against an order issued on May 8,  1987  by
          the District Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New  York)
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 332  42nd  Street,
          Brooklyn, New York, Apartment 4D, wherein the Administrator 
          granted Major Capital Improvement (MCI) rent  increases  for  the
          controlled and stabilized  apartments  in  the  subject  premises
          based on the installation of replacement  windows  building-wide,
          angle iron on all window tops,  building  entrance  door,  a  new
          roof, and a new intercom system.

          The owner commenced  the  proceeding  below  by  filing  its  MCI
          application with the Administrator in June of 1986.  In  response
          to the application, the petitioner filed an  answer  stating,  in
          substance, that 

               (I)   The  owner  replaced  perfect  storm   windows
                    (which had screens) with  new  windows  without
                    screens; and

               (II) there is a  leak  in  the  tenant's  top  floor
                    apartment and the owner's claim that  the  roof
                    has been repaired is not true.

          The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, granted 
          the owner's MCI application.

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenant contends, in substance, that:

               (A)  The tenant had been  paying  $10.00  per  month
                    extra for the  old  storm  windows  (which  had
                    screens) before they  were  replaced  with  new
                    inferior windows; 

               (B)  parts  of  the  ceiling  in  the  tenant's  top
                    floor apartment leak every time it rains;

          BF 230035 RT
               (C)  a full-time super w s  replaced  with  a  part-
                    time super at the premises; and

               (D)  other essential services at the  premises  have
                    decreased drastically.

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

          The  record  discloses  that  the  owner  substantiated  its  MCI
          application in the proceeding below by  submitting  documentation
          in support of the application,  including  copies  of  contracts,
          contractors' certifications, invoices, proposals,  and  cancelled
          checks for the work herein.   With  regard  to  the  petitioner's
          contentions concerning the window screens, the  record  discloses
          that the owner installed thermal replacement windows in place  of
          the old storm windows.  Thus,  the  owner  was  not  required  to
          install the screens.  In addition, the owner  has  submitted  the
          contractor's statement indicating that the  useful  life  of  the
          old prime windows had expired, and the records of  this  Division
          disclose that the useful life of the storm windows (for which  an
          increase was granted in 1967) has long since expired.

          With respect to the petitioner's contentions concerning  services
          (including the ceiling  leaks),  the  records  of  this  Division
          disclose  that   six   months   after   the   issuance   of   the
          Administrator's  order  herein,  the  tenant  filed   a   service
          complaint and that on September 26, 1988, a rent reduction  order
          (Docket No. ZBK 220275 S, effective January 1, 1988)  was  issued
          for the subject apartment based on a decrease in  services.   The
          rent reduction order was based on five service items, only one of 
          which concerned the work herein.  This item was listed as service 
          No. 4 in  the  Administrator's  order.   "The  hall  ceiling  was
          repaired but, wall plaster is  defective  in  small  area.".   In
          addition, the Administrator's  order  stated  that  the  bathroom
          window is operative and working properly.  Thus, the record  does
          not disclose  service  problems  relevant  to  the  installations

          On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is  found  that
          the Administrator's order was correct and should be affirmed.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Applicable  provisions  of  the
          Rent Stabilization Code and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is

          ORDERED, that the Administrative Appeal be, and the  same  hereby
          is, denied; and that the District Rent Administrator's order  be,
          and the same hereby is, affirmed.

                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  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