HG120092RT

                                  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.: HG120092RT
                                                  
          FRANCES MULHAUSER                       RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: GG120002RP
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               The above named petitioner-tenant timely refiled a Petition 
          for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued March 23, 1993. The order concerned housing 
          accommodations known as Apt. 4C located at 155-01 90th Ave., 
          Jamaica, N.Y.  The Administrator issued an order pursuant to a 
          remand from the Commissioner wherein it was found that all windows 
          have screens installed, that the windows operate properly and that 
          the windows do not allow any air seepage.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 
          appeal.

               The tenant originally commenced this proceeding on January 30, 
          1986 by filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services 
          wherein she alleged that the new windows installed by the owner in 
          July, 1984 are inferior to the old windows, are not installed 
          properly and that she no longer has storm windows and screens for 
          which she was charged a rent increase in 1977.  The complaint was 
          assigned Docket No. AA120717S.  On June 11, 1986 the Administrator 
          issued a rent reduction order granting the tenant a rent reduction 
          of $40.50 per month based on a finding that the there were nine 
          missing storm windows, nine missing screens and air seepage.

               The owner filed an administrative appeal of the 
          Administrator's order.  The appeal was assigned Docket No. 
          ARL11919Q.  On July 2, 1992 the Commissioner issued an order and 
          opinion wherein the owner's appeal was granted in part and the 
          proceeding was remanded to the Administrator for further 
          processing.  The Commissioner specifically ruled that the 
          installation of thermal windows freed the owner from the 
          requirement of maintaining storm windows.  The Commissioner also 












          HG120092RT

          ruled that, since there had been no inspection confirming the 
          existence of air seepage, the proceeding had to be remanded so that 
          the Administrator could order an inspection to be conducted.

               On February 1, 1993 the Administrator ordered this proceeding 
          reopened, pursuant to the Commissioner's order of remand.  The 
          proceeding was assigned Docket No. GG120002RP.  The parties were 
          given an opportunity to comment.  The tenant filed a reply on 
          February 3,1993 and again complained, in relevant part, that the 
          new windows were not properly installed and permit dirt, air and 
          water seepage.  The owner filed a reply on February 18, 1993 and 
          stated that the windows were functioning properly.

               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on March 9, 1993 and 
          revealed the following:

                    1.   The apartment windows are installed properly and do 
                         not allow for any dirt, air or water seepage,

                    2.   All windows open and close properly,

                    3.   All windows are provided with screens.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on March 
          23, 1993.  The report of the inspector was set forth as well as the 
          Commissioner's ruling in the above described administrative appeal 
          bearing Docket No. ARL11919Q.  The Administrator found that the 
          original rent reduction order should be modified to reflect the 
          fact that the windows have screens installed, that the windows do 
          not allow seepage and that the windows operate properly with 
          respect to the tenant's complaint concerning the difficulty of 
          opening and closing same.  The Administrator also noted that the 
          owner had filed for and been granted rent restoration (Docket No. 
          FC120272OR).

               On appeal the tenant asserts that the thermal windows are not 
          the same as storm windows and screens and that the tenants should 
          not have to continue paying a $40.50 per month rent increase 
          previously ordered for storm windows and screens.  The tenant's 
          appeal does not challenge the Administrator's findings with regard 
          to the operation of the windows or the issue of seepage.  The 
          petition was served on the owner on August 4, 1993.

               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               Thermal replacement windows are the energy efficient modern 
          equivalents of storm windows. The installation of such windows with 
          screens renders the use of storm windows unnecessary and obsolete.  
          The Commissioner finds that the Administrator's order issued 
          pursuant to remand was based on the entire record including the 






          HG120092RT

          results of the above described physical inspection.  The tenant has 
          not rebutted that report.  The order is, therefore, affirmed.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it 
          is 

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

          ISSUED:



                                                                             
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             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