STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
SHEFA REALTY CORP.,
PETITIONER DOCKET NO.:
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 31, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
September 23, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodation known as 540 Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn,
New York, Apartment 4-S, wherein the Administrator determined that
the tenant's application should be denied without prejudice to the
filing of another application if other facts can be shown which
warrant relief under the Regulations.
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 administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly denied
the tenant's application for a decrease in rent.
On December 11, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging, in
pertinent part, that the new windows installed in the apartment do
not match and some are missing screens.
The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging that windows
were installed on two different occasions but all are the same
color and have the same features.
The tenant was asked by the Administrator if repairs were made and
advised on June 30, 1988, that the tenant had been forced to
purchase his own screens.
A Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspection
conducted on August 18, 1988, revealed that all windows in the
subject apartment have screens.
On appeal the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, that
the owner failed to install four (4) window screens in the subject
The petition was served on the owner on December 6, 1988, and on
May 29, 1989, the owner filed an answer to the petition stating
that it is not obligated to provide screens because they were not
included on the registration statement. The owner further alleged
that, despite this fact, the tenant was reimbursed for the purchase
of the screens.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The owner alleged that even though the service was not required or
a part of the rent, it reimbursed the tenant for his installation
of window screens throughout the apartment.
This allegation was not rebutted by the tenant and an inspection
conducted on August 18, 1988, showed that all windows had screens.
The Commissioner finds, therefore, that the Administrator properly
denied the tenant's complaint.
It is clear that the tenant has failed to present credible evidence
on appeal which would disturb the Rent Administrator's findings
If the owner did not, in fact, reimburse the tenant for the cost of
the screens, the tenant may seek reimbursement in a court of
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and Evic-
tion Regulations for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA