CK220165RT
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433





          ------------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: CK220165RT

                    Margaret Rhatigan,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: BL220551S
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On November 25, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on November 
          9, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 9281 Shore Road, Brooklyn, N.Y., Apt. 221, 
          wherein the Administrator determined that a reduction in rent was 
          not warranted.

          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 rent reduction.

          On December 15, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that 
          the owner failed to maintain combination storm and screen window 
          services.

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint, of February 18, 1988, 
          alleging that there has been a change in service or equipment which 
          does not constitute a reduction in services because the combination 
          storm and screen windows were replaced with new aluminum thermal 
          barrier windows with screens.

          A DHCR inspection conducted on October 25, 1988, revealed that the 
          combination storm and screen windows were replaced with double pane 
          thermal windows and screens.


          On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, the 
          owner removed the storm and screen windows for which she paid an 












          CK220165RT

          extra $2.50 per month rent and that consequently, the rent should 
          be reduced by $2.50 per month.

          The petition was served on the owner on December 15, 1988.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          For rent controlled tenants, Section 2202.16 of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations provides that a finding that an owner failed 
          to maintain essential services may result in an order of decrease 
          in maximum rent, in an amount determined by the discretion of the 
          Rent Administrator, to reflect the decreased rental value because 
          of the decrease in services.

          In the case at bar, however, the inspection held on October 25, 
          1988, showed that although the owner had removed the combination 
          storm and screen windows as the tenant alleged, the owner replaced 
          them with the new aluminum thermal barrier windows with screens.

          The Commissioner finds, therefore, that the change in service or 
          equipment demonstrated herein does not constitute a reduction in 
          service warranting a decrease in rent.

          The record clearly shows that the Rent Administrator in denying the 
          tenant's application for a rent reduction, based his findings on 
          the results of an inspection, held by the DHCR on October 25, 1988, 
          which revealed that the owner was providing all required services 
          specified in the tenant's complaint.

          The Commissioner deems it appropriate to rely on the results of the 
          Division's inspection and finds that the petitioner failed to 
          adduce convincing evidence that the inspector's findings were 
          erroneous in any way.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations for New York, it is

          ORDERED, that the tenant's 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