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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:              
             RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT CORP.,          
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     BH220559S                


          On April 26, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          April 12, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 360 Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn, New York, 
          Apartment 1-B, wherein the Administrator determined that a reduc- 
          tion 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 August 11, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that air- 
          conditioner services were included in the rent for the subject 
          apartment; that when new windows were installed, the air- 
          conditioner service could no longer be used, but the owner failed 
          to deduct the air-conditioner charges from the rent.

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging that the tenant 
          failed to establish that air-conditioner services were a part of 
          the rent.


          The tenant replied that for about 18 years, he has been paying a 
          $2.00 increase for an air-conditioner.  A copy of an advisory 
          letter dated April 28, 1971, by the Housing and Development Admin- 
          istration confirming this charge was submitted.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          there is no basis for a rent reduction because air-conditioner 
          services were not a part of the rent.

          The petition was served on the tenant on June 30, 1988, and again 
          on July 6, 1988, the tenant filed an answer to the petition and 
          submitted a copy of the Housing and Development Administration 

          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 before the Commissioner indicates that the 
          rent for the subject rent-controlled apartment reflects a $2.00 per 
          month charge for air-conditioner service.

          The Housing and Development Administration (Department of Rent and 
          Housing Maintenance) letter, dated April 28, 1971, submitted by the 
          tenant, supports the tenant's argument that the rent for the sub- 
          ject apartment included a $2.00 per month charge for the use of 
          air-conditioner services.

          The Commissioner finds that the owner failed to adduce credible 
          evidence contradicting the tenant's assertions and that the Admin- 
          istrator properly based his determination on the entire record 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 service was warranted.

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


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

          ORDERED, that the owner'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