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.:DH610394RO
JMJ Realty Co., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:CF610627S
SUBJECT PREMISES:
631 East 220 Street
Apt. CC
Bronx, NY
PETITIONER
-----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL AND REVOKING
ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on August 3, 1989 concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.
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 petition.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on July 15, 1988 by filing a
complaint asserting that in putting in new windows, the owner took
off the old screens which were there for eleven (11) years; that
when her children were sick and confined to bed for days, there was
no ventilation because for security the windows had to be closed all
the time; and that the owner should provide full bars or screens on
the windows.
In answer, the owner asserted that it is not responsible for bars or
screens on the window.
On July 19, 1989, a physical inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported that there were no
screens provided for windows throughout the apartment.
By an order dated August 3, 1989, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that screens/bars
were provided by the tenant, not by the owner.
DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the proceeding should be
remanded on appeal and that the Administrator's order should be
revoked.
DH610394RO
DHCR records are not clear as to whether window screens were
required services on the base date; whether the tenant resided in
the subject apartment for eleven (11) years as alleged by the
tenant; or whether the window screens were installed by the tenant
himself as the owner alleged. Accordingly, this proceeding is
remanded to the Administrator for further consideration including a
hearing, if necessary.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that this appeal and the same hereby is granted to the
extent of remanding this proceeding to the Administrator for further
processing in accordance with this Order and Opinion. The
Administrator's order is revoked without a stay.
ISSUED:
LULA M. ANDERSON
Deputy Commissioner
|
