DOCKET NUMBER: AL 120140-RO
                                 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.: AL 210140-RO
                                         :  
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: AC 110002-RP
        BEECHWOOD GARDENS                                  (QS 00207-B)
        OWNERS INC.        PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     On November 3, 1986 the abovenamed petitioner owner filed a  Petition  for
     Administrative Review against an order issued on September 29, 1986 by the 
     Rent Administrator concerning the housi g  accommodations  known  as  192-
     02/195-45 39th Avenue, Various Apartments, Flushing, Queens.

     On October 2, 1984 various tenants filed a multiple complaint of decreases 
     in services alleging, among other things, that free parking had previously 
     been provided on a first come - first served basis and that the owner  had
     fenced off the parking area and demanded a fee for the use thereof.

     On April 29, 1985 the  Administrator  issued  an  order  dismissing  their
     complaint based on a physical inspection which disclosed  that  the  other
     services had been restored and that parking areas were  in  existence  and
     apparently available and the tenants (QS 00207-B).  The  tenants  filed  a
     petition.

     On February  26,  1986  the  Commissioner  issued  an  order  and  opinion
     remanding the proceeding to the Administrator for  a  hearing  finding  in
     substance, that the  abovenoted  physical  inspection  not  sufficient  to
     properly process the tenants' complaint as to parking (ART 03167-Q).

     On remand such a hearing was conducted before an Administrative Law  Judge
     who found, based on the testimony of 5 long term tenants (who had been  in
     occupancy since various dates in 1955 to 1969)  and  various  photographic
     exhibits, that parking in Z outdoor lots had been available from at  least
     1957 to 1985, on a first come -  first  served  basis,  at  no  additional
     rental charge.  The tenants had conceded that their  leases  had  made  no
     mention of parking.

     The herein appealed order of the  Rent  Administrator  was  based  on  the
     findings and recommendations of the Administrative  Law  Judge  abovenoted
     and, among other things, reduced various stabilized rents as  of  December
     1, 1984 to the  level  in  effect  prior  to  the  most  recent  guideline
     adjustments in effect on November 16, 1984, the date the owner  was  given
     notice of the tenants' original complaint.

     In its petition the owner alleges that the Commissioner's prior  order  of
     remand was influenced by hearsay evidence of a former superintendent; that 
     the owner now has new evidence that said former superintendent,  in  fact,

     collected parking fees from the tenants in cash which he kept for  himself
     "with the prior owner's blessing"; that the rent reductions are  excessive






          DOCKET NUMBER: AL 120140-RO
     since they are more than the parking fee demanded by the owner  and  there
     were never enough parking spaces to accommodate all the complaint  tenants
     some of whom do not even own cars; that the  rent  reductions  should,  at
     most, have been retroactive only to the date of the Administrator's  prior
     order, which found no decrease in services, since the owner  "relied  upon
     said determination to its detriment"; that the tenants did  not  challenge
     the initial 1984 registrations which did not list parking  as  a  service;
     and that the parking lots are unlicensed, and therefore illegal,  and  the
     owner cannot be required to provide an illegal service.

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

     The rules of  hearsay  evidence  do  not  apply  to  the  same  extent  in
     administrative as in judicial proceedings.  In any  case  there  was  more
     than  enough  direct  evidence  in  this   proceeding   to   support   the
     Administrative Law Judge's findings.  The  fact  that  a  prior  order  of
     remand may have been based in part on hearsay evidence is immaterial.

     The owner has submitted nothing but its own allegations  with  respect  to
     new evidence of the conduct of the former superintendent.  Nor  would  the
     prior owner's alleged  informal  acquiescence  in  an  employee's  private
     business, of questionable legality, militate against  the  rights  of  the
     tenants.

     The illegal parking fee demanded by  the  owner  does  not  displace  this
     agency's customary practice as a  measure  of  the  rental  value  of  the
     discontinued service to the tenants.

     Parking was concededly on a first come - first  served  basis.   The  fact
     that tenants might not always be successful in finding parking spaces does 
     not mean they are not entitled to rent reductions.  Nor does the fact that 
     at any given time a tenant might not actually own a  car  since  he  might
     rent or buy one or the service might be required by a visitor.

     The owner certainly knew that the Administrator's prior determination  was
     under challenge.  If it chose not to restore the service it was at its own 
     risk.

     An owner cannot unilaterally relieve itself of the obligation to supply  a
     service by simply not mentioning it in registrations.

     The owner has not proved either that a license is, in fact,  required  for
     the lots or that it has made any attempt to obtain a  license  if  it  is.
     Anyway, in this  case,  the  tenants  would  still  be  entitled  to  rent
     reductions.

     The Commissioner notes that if, for  some  legitimate  reason,  the  owner
     cannot restore the service, it may apply for permission to discontinue  it
     in return for permanent rent reductions.

     The Commissioner finds that the Administrator's determination was correct.





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

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,  denied  and  that






          DOCKET NUMBER: AL 120140-RO
     the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

     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