ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. AL 410136 RT


                                  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  410136  RT,
                                                            AL 410200 RT 
                     VARIOUS TENANTS          :  DRO DOCKET NO. 
                                                 OI     10799-D      through
                                                 OI 10814-D
                                                 Cindy      Real      Estate
                                                 Partnership - owner
                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X 

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On  December  15,  1986  the  above-named  petitioners  filed
          Petitions for Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on
          November 10, 1986 by the  Rent  Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall
          Street, Jamaica, New York concerning  the  housing  accommodations
          known  as  49  Park  Avenue,  New  York,  New  York,  wherein  the
          Administrator terminated the proceeding and  denied  the  tenants'
          application for attorneys' fees, costs, and a stay prohibiting the 
          commencement of a similar proceeding for two years.  

               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 in the administrative appeal.

               This proceeding was commenced on July 1, 1983 when the  owner
          filed a consolidated application under the above-referenced docket 
          numbers, pursuant to Code section 54(d)(1), seeking to be relieved 
          of the requirement to offer renewal leases to the tenants upon the 
          ground that the owner wished to recover the dwelling units for the 
          purposes of  demolishing  the  building  and  constructing  a  new
          building. 

               In opposition to the application, denying that the owner  was
          applying in good faith and listing at least twelve (12)  purported
          violations of housing codes, the tenants alleged  that  the  owner
          had  permitted  living  conditions  at  the  subject  premises  to
          deteriorate to encourage the tenants to vacate.   

               Although afforded the opportunity to do so, the owner did not 
          respond to the tenants' allegations.

               In accord with established procedures, a hearing to determine 
          all issues relating to the owner's application was scheduled.  


          Included in the application process was the requirement  that  the
          owner demonstrate  its  financial  ability  to  proceed  with  the






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. AL 410136 RT
          proposed project.  During the course of the hearings, the  tenants
          contended that the owner had  not  obtained  a  genuine  financing
          commitment.   On  September  15,  1986,  the  owner  notified  the
          Division that its mortgage application had been denied  and  as  a
          result of this  denial,  it  was  withdrawing  its  section  54(d)
          application.  Based on the owner's alleged showing of  bad  faith,
          the tenants moved for an order staying the owner from  refiling  a
          similar application for a period of two years and for an award of 
          attorney's fees and costs.

               The owner responded that the Division was  not  empowered  to
          grant attorney fees in the instant case. Moreover, the owner had 
          voluntarily discontinued the proceeding.  Furthermore,  the  owner
          argued, the facts demonstrate that it had proceeded in good faith. 

               In the order issued on November 10, 1986,  the  Administrator
          terminated the proceeding and denied the tenants' application  for
          attoneys' fees, costs and a stay prohibiting the commencement of a 
          similar proceeding for two years.  The Administrator directed  the
          owner to proffer renewal leases to the tenants.   

               In  the  appeal,  the  tenants  contend   that   the   record
          demonstrates that the owner  acted  in  bad  faith  and  that  the
          owner's section  54(d)  application  was  a  sham  as  it  had  no
          intention  of  demolishing  the  subject  building.   The  tenants
          further contend that because the owner attempted a  fraud  on  the
          DHCR in submitting worthless financial  commitment  letters  which
          necessitated the outlay of substantial time and money, the tenants 
          should be awarded attorneys' fees.  The tenants  assert  the  DHCR
          has the authority to grant the relief under Code section  8.   The
          tenants assert in  the  alternative  that  the  Administrator  was
          enabled by Section 234 of the Real  Property  Law  to  award  them
          attorneys' fees. 

               The Commissioner is  of  the  opinion  that  these  petitions
          should be denied.  

               The Rent Stabilization Law  does  not  specifically  provide,
          except for a proceeding based on an overcharge complaint, for  the
          award of attorneys' fees and costs.  The petitioners' reliance  on
          Real Property Law section  234  is  similarly  misplaced.   R.P.L.
          section 234 provides for the  recovery  of  attorney  fees  in  an
          action  or  summary   proceeding   and   is   inapposite   as   an
          administrative proceeding is not an action in  court.   Matter  of
          Fiedelman v. N.Y. State Department of Health 58 NY 2d 80, 459  NYS
          2d 420 (1983).  Chessin v. New York City Conciliation and  Appeals
          Board  100  A.D.  2d  297,  474  NYS  2d  293  (1st  Dept   1984).
          Accordingly,  the  Commissioner  finds  that   the   Administrator
          correctly denied the tenants' application. 
             
               THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law  and
          Code, it is


               ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the  same  hereby  are,
          denied, and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
          is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. AL 410136 RT









                                                                        
                                          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