STATE OF NEW YORK 
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                           OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION 
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK  11433

                                                                 




          ______________________________________x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE 
          APPEAL OF                               ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                                  DOCKET NO: BK110236RO
                    Franklin    Cruz,    for               DISTRICT    RENT
                    Jonathan Woodner Co.,         ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO: 051854


                                   PETITIONER
          --------------------------------------x
           
          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
                         provided screens."

          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
          service.



          Docket No. BK11236RO

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of  the  opinion
          that  this  proceeding   should   be   remanded   to   the   Rent
          Administrator.







          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.

          Issued:

                                                                           
                                             Elliot Sander
                                             Deputy Commissioner