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.:
RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT CORP.,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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 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
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
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA