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

          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: CL410065RT

                    Sue G. Merk,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: CF410097OR


          On December 16, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          timely petition for administrative review of an order issued on 
          November 14, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the 
          housing accommodation known as 311 East 71st Street, Apt. 7B,
          New York, New York, wherein the Administrator effective August 1, 
          1988, restored the rent that had previously been reduced by order 
          issued May 14, 1986.

          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.

          This proceeding was commenced by the filing by the owner of an 
          application to restore rent dated June 1, 1988.  A copy of the 
          owner's application was served on the tenant who opposed it stating 
          that the defective condition of the stove was never remedied, that 
          she was forced to purchase her own new stove in September 1986, and 
          that the condition of the kitchen wall was not repaired until June, 
          1988.  The Administrator's order of November 14, 1988 found that 
          the conditions, upon which the rent was reduced, had been corrected 
          and granted a restoration of rent effective August 1, 1988 which is 
          the first rent payment date after service of the owner's 
          application on the tenant.

          In addressing the fact that the tenant had purchased her own stove, 
          the Administrator's order further directed that, at the tenant's 


          option, the owner now provide a replacement stove, or the owner 
          must either supply a new stove, or reimburse the tenant for the 
          cost of the stove she purchased.  In the latter two alternatives, 
          the Administrator directed that the owner could then increase the 
          rent by 1/40 the cost of the new equipment.

          In the PAR, the tenant does not object to the restoration of the 
          rent, but argues that she should not have to pay monthly for the 
          remainder of the tenancy for a stove she was forced to replace.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that the petition should be granted.

          The record reveals that the tenant documented her complaint about 
          the stove condition in 1984 and finally replaced the stove at her 
          own expense in 1986.

          If the tenant's stove was not repairable, then the tenant would 
          have been entitled to choose the option of a used comparable stove 
          in good working order, if available, or a new stove with a 1/40th 
          increase for the cost thereof on consent.  If no used comparable 
          stove was available and the tenant's stove could not have been 
          repaired, the owner would be obligated to provide a new comparable 
          stove at no cost to the tenant.

          The Commissioner finds that the Administrator erred in the choice 
          of options given to the tenant with respect to the stove.

          In giving the tenant three options regarding the stove, the 
          Administrator's focus was limited to the obligation of the owner to 
          provide a stove.  The Administrator's order does not adequately 
          address a situation where the tenant has already purchased and 
          installed a new stove.  Under these circumstances, it is redundant 
          to require the owner, after the fact, to go through the exercise of 
          providing a new or reconditioned stove.  The Commissioner, 
          therefore, revokes the three alternatives given to the tenant in 
          the Administrator's order.

          The policy previously iterated herein requires the owner to provide 
          a new stove at no cost to the tenant if no used comparable stove is 

          While the record does indicate that several repairs were made or 
          attempted, the problem with the stove was never remedied and the 
          owner has submitted no evidence to show that he offered to provide 
          a reconditioned stove.

          The Commissioner further finds that the owner is not entitled to, 
          and the tenant is not obligated to pay, a rent increase for the use 
          of the stove that she purchased.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted, 
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          modified in accordance with this order and opinion.


                                             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