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    ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: CC410004RT      
                                                           
                                                           
                                                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                  M. Barry,                      DOCKET NO.: BF410731S            
                        
                                PETITIONER       PREMISES:  170 2nd Ave.          
                                                            Apt. 9E              
                                                            New York, NY 
                                                              
          -----------------------------------X                           

            
             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for administrative 
          review of an order issued on January 28, 1988 concerning the housing 
          accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.  

          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 this administrative appeal.

          This proceeding was commenced on June 26, 1987 by the tenant filing 
          a complaint asserting in substance that the owner had replaced the 
          windows with new ones which cannot be opened from the top without 
          difficulty and could possibly fall out; that the bottom window 
          cannot be opened all the way; that air conditioners cannot be used 
          in these windows because the top half is virtually nonfunctional; 
          that the windows diminish ventilation and are not "minimally open" 
          for access to the fire escape; and that these windows violate the 
          Housing Maintenance Code Section 27-2059 requiring at least one-half 
          of every window to open.

          On August 19, 1987, DHCR transmitted a copy of the complaint to the 
          owner who filed an answer denying the allegations in the complaint 
          and stating that the new thermal break tilt windows are in good 
          working order; that minor adjustments were expected and were made in 
          the installation of replacement windows; that attached affidavit of 
          the property manager shows that over seventy (70) of the tenants' 
          apartments were surveyed with respect to the thermal windows and 
          only fourteen (14) requested adjustments; that the attached 
          CC410004RT













          affidavit of the contract manager of the window manufacturer shows 
          that these windows have the latest features in energy conservation 
          and that in response to the survey, adjustments/minor repairs were 
          made on several occasions in various apartments; and that the 
          attached affidavit of the manager of the corporation which installed 
          the windows describes the adjustments and inspections pursuant to 
          the survey and that the tenant in Apt.9E refused access because 
          there were allegedly no problems with the windows.

          Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the subject apartment was 
          conducted on November 13, 1987 by a DHCR staff member who reported 
          that "one living room window top sash" and "bathroom window top 
          sash" are "difficult to open".

          By order dated January 28, 1988, the Administrator directed the 
          restoration of services based on the inspection results. The order 
          states:

               The tenant did request a rent reduction.
               Based on the evidence, a rent reduction is not warranted.

          In the petition for administrative review, the tenant contends that 
          the "poorly designed" windows still exist; a rent reduction was 
          granted to other tenants with exactly the same windows and problems; 
          and he requests a hearing.

          In answer, the owner asserts that the petition is a bare, self- 
          serving claim that the windows are defective; the tenant cannot 
          apply the rent reduction warranted in other apartments because every 
          apartment is different; and no hearing is required when the 
          Administrator's determination is based on the conclusive findings of 
          the inspection and the evidence in the record.

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

          The Administrator's determination  was based on the entire evidence 
          in the record, including the results of the November 13, 1987 
          inspection which found one living room window top sash and bathroom 
          window top sash difficult to open, deficiencies not warranting a 
          rent reduction.

          The tenant's assertion that rent reductions were granted in other 
          apartments is irrelevant because the defective windows in others if 
          any may be of a more serious nature.

          A hearing is not required. When the Administrator's determination 
          was sufficiently based on the conclusive findings of the inspection 
          and the whole record, as in this case, the Commissioner finds that 
          there is no abuse of discretion which warrants reversal or 
          CC410004RT


          modification of the order appealed from. Accordingly, the 






          determination was in all respects proper and is hereby sustained.

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.


          ISSUED:



                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Deputy Commissioner











                                          3
                                        






    

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