STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
Blannor Realty Corp.,
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed and perfected a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued on December 8, 1987,
concerning the housing accommodations known as 223 Lenox Road,
Apartment C1, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator
determined the tenant's complaint of a reduction of services.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the petition.
The tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a complaint
asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain services in
the subject apartment in that the owner had removed the tenant's
screens during the installation of new windows, and had not
replaced them, notwithstanding a promise to do so.
In an answer, the owner replied that the building was undergoing a
moderate rehabilitation funded by the New York City Participation
Loan Program, and that the windows specifications approved by the
New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development
(HPD) did not include screens as part of the scope of the work.
The owner did not dispute that screens were provided previously.
An inspection of the subject apartment by a DHCR inspector
confirmed that, in fact, none of the windows had screens.
The Rent Administrator directed the owner to restore the screens,
and further, ordered a rent control rent reduction.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner reiterates
that because the owner adhered to HPD specifications, which did not
mention screens as part of the rehabilitation, there was no
diminution of services.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be granted.
Section 804 (Article 15) of the Private Housing Finance Law (PHFL)
provides, in pertinent part, that notwithstanding rent control
provisions, where a multiple dwelling has participated in a
moderate rehabilitation loan program pursuant to Article 15 of the
PHFL, all dwelling units therein shall be subject to the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code.
In addition, Section 2520.6(r)(4)(vi) of the Rent Stabilization
Code provides that for housing accommodations for which rents are
established by governmental agencies pursuant to PHFL, or which are
first made subject to the Code pursuant to the PHFL, the base date
for the building-wide and individual unit services which were
required for approval in connection with establishment of initial
rents pursuant to the PHFL shall be the effective date of the
With the petition, the owner enclosed a copy of an HPD information
letter to the tenant noting that the rent established under the
Article 15 Rehabilitation Program would be subject to the Rent
Stabilization Law, as administered by the Division of Housing and
Community Renewal (DHCR). The Rent for the apartment was
established at $259.96 per month effective June 1, 1987, which also
became the required services base date. In light of the above, the
DHCR is compelled to find that screens were eliminated and need not
be provided as a base date service.
In accordance with the above, the Rent Administrator's order is
revoked. The record should reflect that the apartment is rent
stabilized and that screens are not a required base date service.
Rent arrears, if any, due the owner from the tenant as a result of
this order shall be paid in monthly installments equal in number to
the months the arrears accumulated.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that the petition be granted, and that the Rent
Administrator's order be revoked, as provided above.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA