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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                  JACKSON SURREY CO.,             RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:


          On January 7, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on December 
          15, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accom- 
          modation known 630 Ocean Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, Apt. 12-D, 
          wherein the Administrator determined that the rent of the subject 
          apartment should be reduced to the level in effect prior to the 
          last guideline increase based upon the owner's failure to provide 
          various services to the subject tenant.  The order was based on an 
          inspection held on November 10, 1987, which showed that a number of 
          services required repair and that window screens and venetian 
          blinds were missing.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of 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 appeal, the petitioner-owner claimed that the initial 1984 
          apartment registration shows that blinds, shades and window screens 
          were not listed on the statement; that the tenant never filed a 
          timely objection to the registration statement which was served on 
          the tenant and that consequently the Rent Administrator erred in 
          reducing the rent for its failure to provide these services.


          The petition was served on the tenant on March 3, 1988.

          In answer to the petition, the tenant states that "problems 
          continued into 1989".

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

          The tenant filed an Individual Tenant Statement of Complaint of 
          Decrease in Services on March 25, 1987, listing numerous conditions 
          requiring repair and stating that there never were any screens and 
          that blinds were not returned for a year.

          On October 27, 1987, the owner filed an answer alleging that all 
          repairs were completed.

          An inspection held on November 10, 1987 revealed that there was 
          peeling paint on the walls and ceilings in the bedroom and living 
          room, the windows throughout the apartment allowed air seepage, the 
          windows are missing window screens, the air conditioner is inopera- 
          tive, the bathroom and kitchen cold water turns hot, and venetian 
          blinds are missing in the kitchen and bathroom.

          However, on appeal, the owner submitted copies of the initial 1984 
          Apartment Registration for Apartment 12-D and a proof of mailing of 
          same from the Rent Stabilization Association in support of its 
          contentions on appeal.

          Required services are defined by Section 2520.6(r) of the Rent 
          Stabilization Code as those services which the owner was main- 
          taining or was required to maintain on the applicable base date 
          plus any additional services provided thereafter.  The requirement 
          stated in Section 2528.2 to register services on the initial  
          registration statement did not establish a new base date for 
          required services and the failure of a tenant to object to the 
          registration has no bearing on the determination of which services 
          must be maintained.  Accordingly, the owner's argument that the 
          omission of screens and blinds from the registration statement 
          precludes a rent reduction for these items is without merit.

          However, the Commissioner finds that the tenant did not assert in 
          her complaint that these items are required services that the owner 
          is no longer maintaining.  In fact, she stated that screens were 
          never provided and that she had to wait a year for the blinds to be 
          returned to her.  By the tenant's own admission screens are not a 
          base date service and the blinds had been restored by the time the 

          complaint was filed.  A rent reduction for these items is not 
          warranted.  The Administrator's rent reduction order, appealed 


          herein, is modified to delete screens and blinds and the owner need 
          not restore these items to qualify for restoration of the rent.

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

          ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same hereby 
          is, granted and that the Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed as modified in accordance with this Order and 

          Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately apply for 
          a rent restoration, when all other conditions cited in the rent 
          reduction order have been corrected.


                                                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