CB110191RO
                                  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.: CB110191RO 
                                                  
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                DOCKET NO.: BG110432S        
               HEN YAM LEE CORP.        
                                                PREMISES: 36-07 Steinway St.
                                                          Apt. # 4C
                                                          Long Island City,  
                                                          New York
                                 PETITIONER  
          ----------------------------------x                      
                                                                       

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW     
                          

               The above-named owner filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued on February 5, 1988 
          concerning the housing accommodations relating to the above- 
          described docket number.

               The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order 
          was warranted.

               The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the 
          record and has carefully considered that portion of the record 
          relevant to the issues raised by the administrative appeal.

               This proceeding was commenced on July 10, 1987 by a rent 
          stabilized tenant who filed a complaint, asserting that the owner 
          failed to maintain the windows in the subject apartment.

               On August 19, 1987, the Division sent the owner a copy of the 
          tenant's complaint.

               In an answer filed on September 4, 1987, the owner stated that 
          it had ordered new thermo replacement windows for the apartment and 
          are now making interior repairs on the windows.  The owner 
          submitted no evidence to substantiate this allegation.

               Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the apartment was 
          conducted on December 10, 1987 by a Division staff member who 
          reported the following:













          CB110191RO

                    



                    1.)  In one window of the livingroom, the top and bottom  
                         sashes of the storm window are missing; the top and  
                         bottom sashes of the interior window are loose; the  
                         bottom pane is cracked; and the lock is             
                         inoperative.

                    2.)  In one window of the kitchen, both sashes of the    
                         storm window are missing; the interior window sashes  
                         are loose; and the lock is missing.
                    
                    3.)  In one window of the bedroom, both sashes of the    
                         storm window are missing; the interior window sashes  
                         are in need of repair; and the lock is inoperative.

               The Administrator directed the restoration of services and 
          ordered the reduction of the stabilized rent.

               In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends 
          that new replacement windows as shown by a copy of a repair 
          contract were ordered on August 20, 1987 and available for 
          installation on December 12, 1987; and that "four months between 
          order and installation of windows should not result in the issuance 
          of the order."  The owner also states that according to a housing 
          code violation directive, a cracked window pane (as long as it is 
          not loose) is not a violation; that the window locks were painted 
          over and could have been easily freed if the tenant tried; that all 
          the windows were fully functional; and that the missing top and 
          bottom sashes refer to the storm windows discarded by the tenant.

               On March 28, 1988, a copy of the petition was mailed to the 
          tenant.

               After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the 
          opinion that the petition should be denied.

               Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code states that a 
          tenant may apply to the Division for a rent reduction and "the 
          Division shall so reduce the rent for the period for which it is 
          found that the owner has failed to maintain services."  Section 
          2520.6(r) of the Code defines required services to include windows, 
          maintenance thereof etc.

               The owner's allegation in the petition that a copy of a repair 
          contract shows that new windows were ordered prior to issuance of 
          the Administrator's order and were installed later after the 
          order's issuance is without merit.  The owner failed to submit this 
          evidence in the proceeding below prior to issuance of the 
          Administrator's order.  This claim is beyond the scope of review, 






          CB110191RO

          which is limited to the issues and evidence before the 
          Administrator.

               Despite the owner's contention that the cracked window pane 
          may not be a housing code violation, the Commissioner is of the 
          opinion that this defective condition by itself, and particularly 
          with the other numerous window deficiencies in this case, is a 
          decreased service which warrants a rent reduction.

               All other contentions by the owner are without merit.  The 
          Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based his 
          determination on the entire record, including the results of the 
          on-site inspection conducted on December 10, 1987, and that 
          pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the owner had failed to 
          maintain services, warranting a rent reduction.

               The Commissioner notes that the owner's application for rent 
          restoration (CB110204OR) had been granted on December 15, 1988.

               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        
                                                 

                    






    

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