CC420040RO
                                  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.:  CC420040RO
                                                  
          CORONET PROPERTIES                      RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: BF410423S
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               The above named petitioner-owner timely refiled a Petition for 
          Administrative Review against an order of the Rent Administrator 
          issued January 7, 1988. The order concerned housing accommodations 
          known as Apt 16D located at 170 Second Avenue, New York, N.Y.  The 
          Administrator 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 
          appeal.

               The tenant commenced this proceeding on June 11, 1987 by 
          filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein he  
          alleged that the owner had installed defective replacement windows 
          in his apartment and cited various problems regarding the opening 
          and closing of the windows.  

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond.  The owner, represented by counsel, 
          filed a response on September 23, 1987.  The owner stated, in sum, 
          that the windows in question were in good working order except for 
          a few minor repairs, that the tenants were given the opportunity to 
          have repairs made to the replacement windows after they were 
          installed, that the owner had an independent contractor conduct 
          inspections to determine various tenants allegations of defective 
          window installation, that 21 tenants of whom the complaining tenant 
          was one refused to allow access for an inspection, that the 
          contractor was able to conduct inspections of other apartments and 
          found no major defects in the installations, that the owner will 
          make a further attempt to gain access to the subject apartment for 
          purposes of conducting an inspection, that the new windows pose no 
          safety threat to the public nor do they rise to the level of a 
          decrease in services and that the complaint should be denied.












          CC420040RO

           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on November 17, 1987 and 
          revealed the following:

                    1.   Top kitchen window sash difficult to open,

                    2.   Two living room windows have top sashes that are 
                         difficult to open,

                    3.   Master bedroom sashes has defective sashes that are 
                         difficult to open and close.  The top sash will not 
                         stay within the window track,

                    4.   One small bedroom window has a top sash that is 
                         difficult to open,

                    5.   The remaining small bedroom window comes off the 
                         track and will not lock.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          January 7, 1988 and ordered a $9.00 per month rent reduction as 
          follows: $1.50 each for the first, third, fourth and fifth 
          conditions reported and $3.00 for the second condition.  

               On appeal the owner, as represented by counsel, states that 
          the subject windows were inspected by a contractor on September 16, 
          1987 and reinspected on November 6, 1987, that these inspections 
          revealed that the windows in question required only minor 
          adjustments, that the adjustments were made, that other tenants 
          residing in the building had made complaints requesting a rent 
          reduction based on defective windows and that no rent reductions 
          had been ordered, and that any problems with the windows were in 
          the nature of minor repairs for which a rent reduction is not 
          warranted.  the owner attached documentation to the petition in the 
          form of affidavits, sworn to by the individual who did the 
          inspections described above, attesting to the fact that the windows 
          had been properly installed and that only minor adjustments were 
          required.  The owner also attached copies of Administrator's orders 
          issued in cases where other building tenants had requested rent 
          reductions based on problems with the windows.  The orders were 
          offered to show that no rent reductions had been granted to any 
          other tenant.  The petition was served on the tenant.

               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The submissions made by the owner both before the 
          Administrator and in this administrative appeal proceeding averred 
          that the windows in question were properly installed and only minor 
          adjustments were required.  The DHCR inspector reported otherwise, 
          however.  Numerous prior decisions of the Commissioner have held 






          CC420040RO

          that the report of a DHCR inspector is entitled to more probative 
          weight than the unsupported allegations of a party to the 
          proceeding.  

               Pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction 
          Regulations for New York City a tenant may apply to the DHCR for a 
          rent reduction based on decreased services.  The Administrator is 
          empowered to order a rent reduction of a dollar amount 
          approximating the decrease in value of the apartment.  The 
          Commissioner finds that the Administrator based this determination 
          on the entire record  including the results of the on-site physical 
          inspection conducted on November 17, 1987.  The order here under 
          review is affirmed.

               The Commissioner notes that the owner filed an application for 
          rent restoration (Docket No CC420047OR) and that the application 
          was denied on January 5, 1989.  No further application has been 
          filed.

               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.

          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