STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: CK220165RT
DOCKET NO.: BL220551S
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
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
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
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
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA