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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  CB410082RO
          CORONET PROPERTIES                      RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: BF410727S

               On February 11, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued January 28, 1988. The order concerned housing 
          accommodations known as Apt 10E 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 

               The tenant commenced this proceeding on June 1, 1987 by filing 
          a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services in which he 
          alleged that the owner had installed defective replacement windows 
          in the subject 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 the allegations of defective window 
          installation made by several of the building tenants, 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.
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspector made the following report:

                    1.   Two top living room windows are difficult to open,

                    2.   One kitchen top window sash is difficult to open,

                    3.   One bathroom window top sash is difficult to open,

                    4.   Two bedroom top window sashes are difficult to 

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          January 28, 1988 and ordered a $9.00 per month rent reduction as 
          follows: $1.50 each for the second and third conditions reported 
          and $3.00 for the first and fourth 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 these 
          other tenants.  The petition was served on the tenant on March 16, 

               The tenant filed a response on April 4, 1988 and challanged, 
          among other things, the owner's statements that any problems with 
          the windows were so minor as to not warrant a rent reduction.  The 
          tenant requested that the Commissioner affirm the Administrator's 

               The owner filed a reply on April 26, 1988 and stated that the 
          petition was properly signed and verified.  The owner then 
          essentially restated the arguments raised in the petition for 
          administrative review.
               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 
          that the report of a DHCR inspector is entitled to more probative 
          weight than the unsupported allegations of a party to the 

               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 described above.  The order here under review is 

               The Commissioner notes that the owner filed an application for 
          rent restoration (Docket No DD410073OR) and that the application 
          was granted on September 26, 1989.  

               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.


                                             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