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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:              
                                                  DOCKET NO.:


          On February 3, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          January 8, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 170 Second Avenue, Apartment 5-A, New York, 
          New York, wherein the Administrator determined that a reduction in 
          rent was warranted based upon a reduction in services.

          The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of services.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issue raised by the administrative appeal.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced 
          the rent of the subject apartment.

          On June 1, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that 
          although the owner replaced the windows throughout the apartment 
          with new windows, these windows can not be opened from the top 
          without expending great energy and labor.

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging that the new 
          windows are in working order excepting certain normal minor repairs 
          attendant to the installation of new windows which are not of a 
          rent reducing nature.


          A Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspection 
          conducted on November 9, 1987, revealed that one top kitchen window 
          was hard to open.

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          the Rent Administrator erred by reducing the rent for only one 
          kitchen window because the rent should have been reduced for all 
          seven windows in the apartment insofar as none of these windows 
          were in working order.

          The petition was served on the owner on March 18, 1988, and on 
          March 25, 1988, the owner filed an answer to the petition stating 
          that the tenant's position that all windows in the apartment are 
          defective and that she should have been granted a rent reduction 
          for all windows is untenable in that any problems with the newly 
          installed windows were minor and the DHCR inspection supported this 
          contention by finding that only the kitchen window required repair.  
          The owner further alleged that even the $1.50 rent reduction was in 
          error because it was a minor and non-rent reducing item.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          For rent controlled tenants, Section 2202.16 of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations provides that a finding that an owner failed 
          to maintain essential services may result in an order of decrease 
          in maximum rent, in an amount determined by the discretion of the 
          Rent Administrator to reflect the decreased rental value because of 
          the decrease in services.

          A review of the record clearly shows that the DHCR inspector 
          checked all windows in the apartment and found that there was one 
          top kitchen window that was hard to open.

          The Commissioner notes that the owner's contention that a window 
          difficult to open is a minor service deficiency unworthy of a rent 
          reduction to be without merit.  This type of service deficiency is 
          worthy of the owner's attention and should have been immediately 

          The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based his 
          determination on the entire record, including the results of the 
          on-site physical inspection conducted on November 9, 1987, and 


          that pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regula- 
          tions a rent reduction reflecting the reduced rental value of the 
          accommodation because of the decreased services was warranted.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner further finds that the tenant has 
          offered insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's 

          The Division's records indicate that the owner's rent restoration 
          application was denied on August 26,1988, (Docket No. CC420048OR).
          The owner may file another application if the repairs have been 
          made.  The rent reduction remains in effect until a restoration 
          order is issued by the Rent Administrator.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations for New York, it is

          ORDERED, that the tenant's 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