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

          APPEAL OF                                  DOCKET NO.: EC220250RO  
                                                     (Refile of EA220296RO) 
                     ERNEST JEREMIAS                                         
                                                     RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                     DOCKET NO.: CJ220650S   
                                                     SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                     420 Avenue F
                                    PETITIONER       Apt.#4J
          -------------------------------------x     Brooklyn, N.Y.


          The above-named owner refiled and perfected a timely petition for 
          administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on January 19, 1990, 
          concerning the above-described housing accommodations.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of 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 October 28, 1988 by filing 
          a complaint asserting that the owner, in installing new apartment 
          windows, had failed to reinstall the window screens that the tenant 
          was entitled to and that there was also vermin infestation in the 

          In answer, the owner asserted in substance that window screens were 
          not provided in the past and were not a service required to be 
          provided to the tenant, and that extermination service was being 

          On November 3, 1989, an inspection of the subject apartment was 
          conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed that there were no 
          screens for several windows in various rooms of the subject 
          apartment and that there was evidence of vermin infestation.

          By an order dated January 19, 1990, the Administrator directed the 
          restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction in the amount 
          of $5.00 per month for the missing window screens and $4.00 per 
          month for the vermin infestation.


          In this petition, the owner again contends in substance that window 
          screens were never provided to the subject apartment and that 
          extermination service is being provided but that the tenant refused 
          apartment access to the exterminator.

          DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant who answered, 
          stating that they always had window screens and that they never 
          refused to let the exterminator into the apartment.

          After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted 
          in part and the Administrator's order should be modified, as more 
          fully set forth below.

          Pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations, 
          the Administrator may impose a rent reduction when it is found that 
          there has been a reduction in essential services.  The owner's 
          petition does not establish any basis to modify or revoke the 
          Administrator's determination based on the November 3, 1989 
          inspection which confirmed the existence of defective conditions, 
          warranting a rent reduction, with respect to the vermin infestation 
          in the subject apartment.  The Administrator's order is hereby 
          affirmed as to the $4.00 rent reduction granted for this condition.

          However, the Commissioner's review of the record in this proceeding 
          as well as the rent control records for the subject apartment 
          reveals that the evidence is silent as to whether window screens 
          were provided by the owner in the past and so fails to establish 
          whether the owner was required to maintain the apartment window 

          The Administrator did not investigate below whether or not screens 
          were required to be provided but, instead, relied on the inspect- 
          or's report of missing screens.  The report is not dispositive of 
          the issue of whether or not screens are required to be provided by 
          the owner.  Since it cannot be determined whether or not the owner 
          was required to maintain this service from the available record, 
          the order here under review must be revoked in part, with respect 
          to the $5.00 per month rent reduction for the missing window 
          screens, and the proceedings should be reopened and remanded to the 
          Rent Administrator for further consideration so that the 
          Administrator can investigate and determine whether the provision 
          of the window screens in the subject apartment is an essential 
          service which the owner is required to maintain.

          If, on remand, the Rent Administrator determines that the owner is 
          required to maintain the window screens, the Administrator may 


          reimpose the rent reduction.

          Any arrears due the owner from the tenant as a result of this order 
          shall be paid in equal monthly installments at the amount of the 
          monthly rent reduction granted in the proceedings below, but 
          revoked herein.

          Division records indicate that the owner filed an application to 
          restore the rent which was denied on October 19, 1990, under Docket 
          No.EB220008OR.  Another rent restoration application was filed 
          which was granted in part on July 19, 1993, under Docket No. 
          FL220171OR.  Finally, Division records also indicate that the owner 
          filed a third application to restore the rent which was denied on 
          June 10, 1994, under Docket No. HH220154OR.  The owner is advised 
          to file another such application if the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Control 
          Law and Regulations and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in 
          part, to the extent of revoking part of the Rent Administrator's 
          order and reopening and remanding the proceedings to the Rent 
          Administrator for further consideration in accordance with the 
          above, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
          is, modified in accordance with this Order and Opinion.  The order 
          and determination of the Administrator is hereby affirmed in all 
          other respects.

                                                       LULA M. ANDERSON  
                                                       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