AL 110439-RO, et al.
                                
                        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     S.J.R. NO. 2160
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.
                                        AL 110439-RO;  ARL 13161-Q;
                                        BC 110593-RO;  AJ 110581-RO
        M & L JACOBS, INC.,             DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                        DOCKET NOS.
                                        029678
                        PETITIONER      029673
----------------------------------x


 ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                             IN PART


On  August  27, 1986, the above-named owner filed a petition  for
administrative  review (ARL 13161-Q) of an order issued  on  July
25,  1986  (Docket No. 029673), by a District Rent  Administrator
concerning the housing accommodations known as Apartment 4-A,
82-15  35th  Avenue,  Jackson  Heights,  New  York,  wherein  the
District Rent Administrator ordered that services listed  on  the
building  registration of 1984 be amended.  Because this petition
(ARL  13167-Q) failed to include an affidavit of service  it  was
rejected by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR).

On  October  3, 1986, the owner submitted a second  petition  for
administrative  review (AJ 110581-RO) that did include  an  affi-
davit  of  service.   The  agency  dismissed  this  petition  (AJ
110581-RO) for untimeliness.

Subsequent  thereto, the owner filed a petition  in  the  Supreme
Court  pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules
requesting  that  the court direct the rent  agency  to  issue  a
determination of the owner's administrative appeal.

On  May  26,  1987, a Stipulation of Withdrawal was entered  into
between the agency and the owner.  The agency agreed to deem  the
petitions as timely.

The  petition  was again submitted and inadvertently  assigned  a
third docket number (BC 110593-RO).

On  December  18,  1986, the above-named owner timely  refiled  a
pe-tition  for administrative review (AL 110439-R)  of  an  order
issued on September 29, 1986 (Docket No. 029678), concerning  the
housing accommodations known as Apartment 3-F, 82-15 35th Avenue,
Jackson Heights, New York and involving the same issues as above.

The  Commissioner is consolidating these petitions and this order
and opinion is dispositive of all of them.

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 petitions for review.

On  September  18, 1984, the tenants in Apartment  4-A  filed  an
objection to the building services registration (Form RR-3) under
Docket  No.  029673 stating that the owner had omitted  from  the
registration the laundry room facility and lobby furnishings.

In  the  order  of  July 25, 1986 under Docket  No.  029673,  the
Admin-istrator  deemed the tenants' factual allegations  admitted
based  on  the fact that the record contained no answer from  the
owner,  and determined that these services were included  in  the
rent.  The Administrator ordered that the registration be amended
to reflect those facts.

In  its  petitions  for administrative review  (ARL  13161-Q;  AJ
110581-RO;  BC 110593-RO) the owner alleges that it had  in  fact
filed  an  answer  before the Administrator.  Included  with  the
petition  is a copy of that answer and proof of service on  DHCR.
Further  the owner addresses the merits of the original complaint
in  its  petition.   It asserts that it had  never  provided  the
laundry room equipment, and that the equipment was provided by  a
private  contractor  who leased the space.  Further,  it  alleges
that  the lobby furniture was tenant-supplied and never installed
by  the  owner.   The  owner alleges that the  tenants  were  not
assessed or charged any additional rents.

On  September  19,  1984, the tenant in Apartment  3-F  filed  an
objection to the building services registration under Docket  No.
029678 with the same objections as above.

The  owner's answer alleged, again, that the lobby furniture  was
tenant-supplied and that the laundry room was leased to a private
contractor who supplied the equipment.

In  the order of September 29, 1986 under Docket No. 029678,  the
Administrator  determined that the laundry  room,  despite  being
leased to an outside contractor, is a required service. However,

it was also determined that the tenant-supplied lobby furnishings
were  not  a  required  service and need not  be  listed  on  the
regis-tration.

In  its  petition  for administrative review (AL  110439-RO)  the
owner reiterates the allegations made to the Administrator.   The
owner stresses that it never included either service in the rent.

After  careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the  opinion
the petitions should be granted in part.

The  Commissioner  is  considering this entire  question  on  the
merits  because the record indicates that the owner answered  the
tenants'  complaint under Docket No. 029673 but that this  answer
was not considered by the Administrator.

First,  the Commissioner finds that under the circumstances  pre-
sent in this case, the lobby furniture in the subject building is
not  a  required service and need not be listed on  the  building
services  registration.  Section 2520.6(r) of the Rent Stabiliza-
tion  Code  defines a required service as the space and  services
that  the  owner was maintaining on the base date and  any  addi-
tional  services provided thereafter.  It is undisputed that  the
lobby furniture had been tenant-supplied.  The precedent cited by
the  tenants  in their answer to the petition for review  can  be
distinguished  on various grounds.  In that case, tenant-supplied
terrace  partitions were deemed a service.  That case related  to
individual apartments and were not a building-wide service. Also,
the terrace partitions were structural in nature, attached to the
building  and  not  readily removable.   Clearly,  these  factual
distinctions from the instant case, demonstrated that the  owner,
in  the  case  cited  as  precedent, had  adopted  these  terrace
partitions as a required service. The same facts do not exist  in
the   instant  case.   Accordingly,  the  tenant-supplied   lobby
furniture  in the subject building is not a required  service  in
this  case  and  the  owner need not register or  maintain  these
furnishings.

Second, the owner has alleged that the laundry room machines had
always been supplied by an independent contractor, and the ten-
ants  have not refuted this statement.  Accordingly, the  Commis-
sioner  finds  that since the base date or the time the  services
were first provided such equipment was provided by an independent
contractor.   Therefore,  the owner should  not  be  required  to
provide  or maintain laundry room equipment.  However, the  space
that is provided for laundry equipment remains a service.






THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED,  that  these  petitions be, and  the  same  hereby  are,
granted in part, and that the Administrator's orders be, and  the
same  hereby  are,  modified in accordance with  this  order  and
opinion.


ISSUED:



ELLIOT SANDER
                                         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