EC220250RO
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.: EC220250RO
(Refile of EA220296RO)
ERNEST JEREMIAS
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: CJ220650S
SUBJECT PREMISES:
420 Avenue F
PETITIONER Apt.#4J
-------------------------------------x Brooklyn, N.Y.
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN PART, MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER AND REOPENING AND REMAND-
ING PROCEEDINGS TO RENT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
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
apartment.
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
provided.
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.
EC220250RO
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
screens.
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
EC220250RO
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.
ISSUED:
LULA M. ANDERSON
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
|
