DOC. NO.: BK 110241-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. BK 110241-RO
JACK HARRIS, FOR : DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
TISHMAN EAST INC., : DOCKET NO. 052558
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On November 4, 1987, the above-named owner filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on September 29, 1987 by a
District Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as
Apartment B-1002, 61-20 Grand Central Parkway, Forest Hills, New York.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issues
raised by the petition for review.
The original proceeding was initiated by the tenant's filing an objection
to the 1984 services registration for the subject apartment on October 26,
1984, alleging that centralized air-conditioning units are included in the
rent, and that the three room air-conditioners are a required service.
The owner did not submit an answer.
In the order under review herein the Administrator determined that in view
of the fact that the owner failed to respond to the tenant's objection,
the factual allegations would be deemed to be admitted, and that the owner
is to provide three room air-conditioners for the subject apartment.
In the petition for administrative review the owner asserts that it never
received a copy of the tenant's objection; that central air-conditioning
is provided and paid for by the owner, but, the owner further states,
individual room air-conditioners are not. The owner submits a copy of the
1984 building services registration, showing that central air-conditioning
is a required service.
DOC. NO.: BK 110241-RO
The tenant's answer to the owner's petition states that the owner's
petition "should not be denied." (Emphasis in original.) The tenant
further asserts that the subject apartment is in fact equipped with
central air-conditioning that is provided and paid for by the owner, but
that the tenant's only concern is that the central air-conditioning should
be properly maintained.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
petition should be granted.
The Commissioner finds, based upon the preponderance of the evidence, that
the owner was not served with the tenant's objection. The rent agency
mailed the tenant's complaint to the owner's prior address, which was
different from the owner's address listed in the annual registration
statement, at the time of the mailing.
Since the owner was not served with the tenant's complaint, thus not being
given an opportunity to respond to the tenant's allegation, the owner's
right to due process was denied.
However, it is not necessary to remand this proceeding to the
Administrator, because of the fact that the tenant in his answer to the
owner's petition, admits to the portion of the owner's petition pertaining
to the central air-conditioning. Also, the tenant does not dispute the
owner's assertion that individual room air-conditioners are not a required
service. The Commissioner further notes that the rent agency's records
(subject apartment's initial registration) do not show individual room
air-conditioners as a required service.
Accordingly, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition
should be granted, and that the Administrator's order should be revoked.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is, granted,
and that the Administrator's order, and the same hereby is, revoked; and
FURTHER FOUND AND DETERMINED, that central air-conditioning is a required
service for the subject housing accommodation.