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
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
DOCKET NO: BK110236RO
Franklin Cruz, for DISTRICT RENT
Jonathan Woodner Co., ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING TO RENT ADMINISTRATOR
On November 9, 1987, the above-named owner filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on October 28, 1987 by a
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation known as
42-49 Colden street, Flushing, New York, Apartment No. 6-C.
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 administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced by the tenant's filing an objection
to the 1984 services registration, on October 1, 1984. The
tenant alleged, among other things, that screens are a required
service, and were omitted from the 1984 apartment registration.
The owner's answer stated that:
"Screens - not a part of building services. Landlord never
In the order reviewed herein the Administrator concluded that the
owner had conceded that screens were a required service, and
found among other things, that screens are a required service.
The owner's petition reiterates that screens were not a required
Docket No. BK11236RO
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this proceeding should be remanded to the Rent
A review of the record reveals that the owner did, in fact,
dispute the tenant's contention that screens are a required
service in the proceeding before the District Rent Administrator.
The Commissioner notes that the Administrator inadvertently
failed to take note of this fact. Accordingly, the issue of
whether the subject apartment's screens are a required service
should be remanded to the Administrator for reconsideration and
for the issuance of a new determination.
The Commissioner finds that the remainder of the Administrator's
order should be affirmed, and should remain in full effect.
Therefore, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is,
remanded to the Rent Administrator for reconsideration of the
issue of whether the subject apartment's screens are a required
service, and for the issuance of a new determination resolving
that issue; and that the remainder of the Rent Administrator's
order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.