CJ220285RT        



                                    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.:             
                                                  CJ220285RT                 
                  SHEFA REALTY CORP.,               
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                   PETITIONER     DOCKET NO.:
          ----------------------------------x     BL220563S              




            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.














          CJ220285RT        






          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 
          apartment.

          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 
          below.

          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 
          competent jurisdiction.













          CJ220285RT        





          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, 
          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