AL 110439-RO, et al.
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
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
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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
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
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