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 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: CC430048RO
FRANK & WALTER EBERHARDT RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order of the Rent Administrator
issued January 28, 1988. The order concerned housing accommodations
known as Apt. 4-FW located at 312 East 82nd Street, New York, N.Y.
The Administrator directed restoration of services and ordered a
rent reduction for failure to maintain required services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The tenant commenced this proceeding on June 30, 1987 by
filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein he
alleged that several replacement windows installed in the apartment
were without screens.
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded
an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on January
20, 1988. This response was a consolidated response to 24
different proceedings. The owner raised a common defense to each.
This defense consisted of an objection to the agency exercising
jurisdiction over these 24 proceedings because the subject building
had been "substantially rehabilitated" within the meaning of
Section 5(a)(5) of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA). The
owner provided documentation in support of the "substantial
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on November 27, 1987 and
revealed that the bathroom, one kitchen, two bedroom and two living
room windows are without screens.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on
January 28, 1988 and ordered a $6.00 per month rent reduction based
on the inspector's report.
On appeal the owner, as represented by counsel, restates the
jurisdictional objection contained in the consolidated response
described above. The petition was served on the tenants on June 8,
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2200.9 of the Rent and Eviction
Regulations for New York City, no order of decontrol has been
issued for the subject apartment. The Commissioner also notes that
the tenant remained in occupancy during the alleged rehabilitation.
Pursuant to Section 2200.9, the DHCR retains jurisdiction over the
A review of the rent control records for the subject apartment
reveals that the owner is required to provide the screens which the
inspector reported are not being provided. Therefore, the
Commissioner finds that the Administrator was correct in ordering
the instant rent reduction. The order here under review is
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA