Docket Number: FE 220058-RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: FE 220058-RO
WETHEROLE HOLDING CORP., DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: EK 220659-S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 7, 1991, the above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued on April 22, 1991,
concerning t e housing accommodations relating to the above-
described docket number.
This administrative appeal is being determined pursuant to the
provisions of 2520.6(r) and 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issue raised by the administrative appeal.
On November 29, 1990, the tenant commenced this proceeding by
filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
certain services in the subject apartment.
In its answer filed on December 17, 1990, the owner denied the
allegations set forth in the tenant's complaint. The owner also
asserted that it is attempting to gain access to investigate, inter
alia, whether the "the windows need fixing."
In another letter filed on January 18, 1991, the owner alleged that
all required services are now maintained, except for the windows
just ordered and to be installed.
Thereafter on March 12, 1991, an inspection of the subject apartment
was conducted by a D.H.C.R. inspector who confirmed the existence of
The Rent Administrator directed on April 22, 1991 restoration of
these services and further ordered a reduction of the stabilization
In its petition for administrative review, the owner states, in
substance, that it was not aware of the tenant complaining about
"defective window locks, loose or tight window sashes... or a
Docket Number: FE 220058-RO
missing window screen" and that the tenant itself refused access for
the timely installation of new windows.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
The record clearly shows that the owner was aware of the tenant's
complaint concerning the windows. Receipt by the owner of the
tenant's complaint is sufficient notice. The owner admitted in its
answer below that the "windows need fixing;" and the owner cannot
now argue that windows do not come with locks, screens, sashes etc.
The owner knew or had reason to know that defective windows with all
its attachments thereto need to be replaced. Moreover, the owner
had five months from service of the tenant's complaint to the
issuance of the Administrator's order to investigate these defective
windows and to repair same, but the owner failed to do so.
The owner's contention that the tenant itself refused access for
the timely installation of new windows is also without merit. In
the proceeding below, the tenant did allow access for other repairs.
As to the new windows, even if the tenant showed lack of
cooperation, the owner submitted insufficient evidence to
substantiate this contention pursuant to Policy Statement 90-5
"Arranging Repairs/No Access Inspection" either while the proceeding
was pending before the Administrator or by attachment to this
Accordingly, the owner failed to rebut the March 12, 1991 inspection
finding decreased services, warranting rent reduction.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby