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

      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. BJ630092RO

                                          :  DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
                                             DOCKET NO. AH610504R
           Gary Towers Company,             
                                             TENANT: Carlos M. Anazgasty      
                            PETITIONER    : 


      On October 6, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition 
      for Administrative Review against an order issued on September 8, 1987 
      by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York, 
      concerning the housing accommodations known as 3123 Bailey Avenue, 
      Apartment 5D, Bronx, New York, wherein the Administrator determined that 
      the installation and use of an air conditioner is a base date service 
      for which the owner cannot collect a separate charge.

      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 August 25, 1986 when the tenant filed 
      a complaint of rent overcharge.   The tenant alleged that the owner was 
      charging an unauthorized additional charge for air conditioners.  The 
      tenant asserted that the subject air conditioners had previously been 
      the basis of an overcharge complaint filed with the New York City 
      Conciliation and Appeals Board (C.A.B. the agency formerly charged with 
      enforcing the Rent Stabilization Law) and that it had been determined 
      that the use of air conditioners was a base date required service for 
      which no additional charge could be made.

      In response to the complaint, the owner stated that said air 
      conditioners were not installed until after October 1, 1985 and that 
      therefore a $5.00 per air conditioner charge was appropriate pursuant to 
      Supplement No. 1 to Operational Bulletin 84.4.

      In the order herein appealed, the Administrator determined that the 
      issues raised in the proceeding had previously been resolved and based 
      upon those orders, directed the owner to cease and desist from billing 
      the tenant for the air conditioner service charge.

      In its appeal, the owner contends that the various opinions cited in the 
      order do not refer to the instant tenant as he may have installed his 
      air conditioner subsequent to the cited determinations.  Additionally, 
      the owner asserts that Supplement No. to Operational Bulletin 84-4 
      supports the charge in that the charge is applicable "regardless of any 
      prior, differing charges and procedures."


      In answer to the appeal, the tenant contends that the regulations cited 
      by the owner are inapplicable in the instant case because of the prior 
      determination rendered by the C.A.B.

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

      The evidence indicates that the installation and use of air conditioners 
      is a base rent service for which the owner cannot collect a separate 
      charge.  Supplement No. 1 to Operational Bulletin 84-4 is inapplicable 
      because it governs instances where the installation and use of an air 
      conditioner is not a required service and is installed initially on or 
      after October 1, 1985.  The owner is estopped from challenging the 
      determinations made by the C.A.B. in February 1982 in Opinion No. 
      19,627.  Said C.A.B. opinion referred specifically to the tenant herein.

      The Commissioner notes that the letter from the Assistant Deputy Counsel 
      of the D.H.C.R. to the owner submitted supplementally by the owner is 
      not pertinent to the issues raised in this appeal because it concerns 
      only the duration of collectibility of an approved air conditioner 

      THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization 
      Law and Code, it is

      ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and the 
      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