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

     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: DE 830180-RT
      VARIOUS TENANTS OF 580, 590 &         DRO DOCKET NO.: WP85-S-1-50-B
      600 BEDFORD ROAD, 


     On April 26, 1989, the above named petitioner-tenants filed a Petition for 
     Administrative Review against an order issued on April  4,  1989,  by  the
     District Rent Administrator, 55 Church Street,  White  Plains,  New  York,
     concerning housing accommodations known as various apartments  of  580,590
     and 600 Bedford Road, Pleasantville, New York.

     The issue in this appeal is  whether  the  District  Rent  Administrator's
     order was warranted.

     The applicable section of the law  is  Section  2500.3(d)  of  the  Tenant
     Protection Regulations.

     The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the  record  and  has
     carefully considered that portion of the  record  relevant  to  the  issue
     raised by the administrative appeal.

     This proceeding was commenced by the tenants' filing  of  a  statement  of
     Complaint of a Decrease in  Building-Wide  services  wherein  the  tenants
     contended that the landlord was not going  to  re-use  or  replace  screen
     doors which are vital for ventilation in the summer.

     In its answer  to  the  tenants'  complaint,  the  landlord  contended  in
     substance that it had replaced the  thirty  year  old,  uninsulated  front
     doors of every apartment with energy-efficient, insulated steel doors, and 
     that the old screen doors could not be put back on  after  the  new  front
     doors were installed.  The landlord further contended that it had replaced 
     almost every old window in the apartment complex (casement windows many of 
     which could not be opened, had fixed panes  or  no  screens)  with  new  -
     double - hung thermopane windows with full screens which  provide  greater
     ventilation than what previously existed.

     In response to the landlord's answer, the tenants contended  in  substance
     that although the new windows provide greater  ventilation  than  the  old
     windows, the new windows still did not provide as much ventilation as when 
     the screen doors were in place with the front doors open.


          DOCKET NUMBER: DE 830180-RT
     In Docket Number WP85-S-1-50-B issued April 4,  1989,  the  District  Rent
     Administrator determined that there had been no  loss  of  ventilation  or
     light and therefore no decrease in service.

     In this petition, the tenants contend in substance that the District  Rent
     Administrator's order is incorrect and should be reversed  because  screen
     doors were part of the basic services  being  provided  when  the  current
     landlord purchased the subject premises, the  landlord  received  a  major
     capital improvement rent increase for the installation of  new  doors  and
     windows, and removal of the screen doors was a reduction of basic services 
     for which a rent reduction should be granted due to the loss  of  adequate

     The landlord did not submit a response to the tenants' petition.

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.

     The record indicates that on June 15, 1988 the District Rent Administrator 
     granted the landlord a major capital improvement rent increase pursuant to 
     Docket Numbers PBC-8-10001-OM  and  PBF-8-10003-OM  based  partly  on  the
     installation of new outer doors.  The record  further  indicates  that  no
     petition for administrative review of the June 15,  1988  order  was  ever
     filed by the tenants concerning the adequacy  of  the  new  doors  or  the
     removal of the screen doors.   Accordingly,  that  order  constituted  the
     final determination of the  rent  agency  with  regard  to  the  new  door
     installation, and the tenants may not  now  raise  the  issue  by  way  of
     collateral attack in the instant service diminution proceeding.  Thus, the 
     tenants' arguments having to do with the adequacy of the new doors and the 
     removal of the screen doors will not be considered as they are  barred  by
     the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

     The Commissioner notes that installation of a  major  capital  improvement
     may alter the physical characteristics of a building or an apartment,  but
     that such alteration does  not  necessarily  constitute  a  "reduction  in
     services".  DHCR has previously  ruled  that  there  is  no  reduction  in
     service where the building-wide installation of air conditioners  prevents
     the opening of windows.  In the instant case the service was the provision 
     of doors and not the  provision  of  ventilation  through  any  particular

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the Emergency Tenant Protection Act and  the
     Tenant Protection Regulations, it is

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,  and  that
     the District Rent Administrator's  order  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,


                                             ELLIOT SANDER
                                          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