DOCKET NO.:  CH 710145-RT
                                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. CH 710145-RT
                                           :  DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                AGATHA C. MANGI,              DOCKET NO. MCD 710010-S
                                           :  PREMISES: 101 JACKSON AVE., #1A
                            PETITIONER                  MINEOLA, NY
     --------------------------------------X   


        ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING TO THE RENT ADMINISTRATOR


     The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for administrative review 
     of an order  issued  concerning  the  housing  accommodations  described
     above.

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

     The tenant commenced this proceeding by  filing  a  complaint  asserting
     that the owner had failed to maintain certain services  in  the  subject
     premises, specifically that owner refused to repair an  air  conditioner
     in the subject apartment.

     In its answer, the owner stated that it was not required  to  make  such
     repairs.  It included a copy of the lease as evidence.  The  owner  also
     included with its answer a copy of the 1984 Registration Statement; said 
     statement stating on its  face  that  the  air  conditioner  was  to  be
     maintained by the tenant.

     In response the tenant agreed, in substance, that  the  air  conditioner
     had been in her apartment when first rented  and  had  been  in  working
     order.  Therefore, the lease clause not  withstanding,  the  owner  must
     continue to supply the base date service of a working air conditioner.

     The Rent Administrator denied the tenant's  complaint,  relying  in  its
     finding on the lease, and also on  the  fact  that  the  tenant  in  the
     proceeding below had not challenged the 1984 Registration Statement.

     On  appeal,  the  tenant  contends  that  the  Administrator's  findings
     conflict with "Rent Stabilization Law."  Specifically the tenant  argues
     that the lease clause conflicts with the requirements of  the  Emergency
     Tenant Protection Act.

     In answer to this petition the owner contends the petition  is  untimely
     since the tenant did not serve the owner with a copy of the petition.









          DOCKET NO.:  CH 710145-RT
     On the substantive level the owner argues that due to the lease's clause 
     and the  tenant  failure  to  object  to  the  owner's  registration  of
     services the owner has no obligation to maintain the air conditioner.

     The Commissioner is of  the  opinion  that  this  proceeding  should  be
     remanded to the Rent Administrator.

     While the Emergency Tenant Protection  Act  does  require  a  tenant  to
     challenge the initial registered rent within  90  days,  no  such  limit
     exists  for  challenging  an  owner's  registration  of  service.   More
     importantly, although it is undisputed  that  the  complaining  tenant's
     initial lease has a clause requiring the  tenant  to  maintain  the  air
     conditioner, such clause would be invalid if the owner was  maintaining,
     or was required to maintain, the air conditioner on the base date.

     Since the record before the Commissioner is inadequate to determine this 
     issue, this matter should be remanded.  At the outset, the  Commissioner
     notes that since 1987 the Division has adapted  the  uniform  policy  of
     serving the  petition  on  the  opposing  parties.   Indeed,  the  form,
     properly used by  the  tenant  (amended  November  1987)  instructs  the
     petitioner to merely file two copies of the petition with  the  Division
     and does not require the service of the petition on any party.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of  the  Tenant  Protection
     Regulations, it is 

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted  to  the
     extent of remanding  this  proceeding  to  the  Rent  Administrator  for
     further processing in accordance with this order and opinion.  The order 
     and determination of the Rent Administrator remains in  full  force  and
     effect until a new order is issued upon remand. 

     ISSUED:



      
                                                     JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                 Acting 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