DOC. NOS.: ARL 10651-Q, ARL 11161-Q

                                 STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

         APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NOS.: ARL 10651-Q
                    KRONSEL REALTY CO.,      :                ARL 11161-Q
                             PETITIONER      :   DRO DOCKET NOS.:
         ------------------------------------X                QS 003952-S
                                                              QS 003954-S
                                                 TENANTS: JOHN and MARY MOORER
                                                          CRAIG PAYTON


         These petitions are being consolidated as they involve common issues 
         of fact and law.

         On May 23 and May 16, 1986, the above named petitioner-owner filed 
         Petitions for Administrative Review against orders issued on April 21, 
         and April 15, 1986, respectively, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 
         Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning housing 
         accommodations known as Apartment 2, 1914 Brookhaven Avenue and 
         Apartment 1, 1916 Brookhaven Avenue, Far Rockaway, New York wherein 
         the Rent Administrator determined that there had been diminutions of 
         services and ordered rent reductions.  The April 16th petition was 
         rejected on June 6, 1986 under docket number ARL 10347-Q.  Petition 
         number ARL 11161-Q, filed June 20, 1986, constitutes the timely 
         refiling of that Petition.

         The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has 
         carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issues 
         raised by the administrative appeal.

         The tenants commenced these proceedings on September 17, 1985 and 
         October 22, 1985 by filing service complaints.

         The tenants requested rent reductions based upon the alleged decreases 
         in services.

         Based on inspections, in Orders Numbered ZQS 003952-S and ZQS 003954- 
         S, the Rent Administrator determined that there were numerous services 
         that were not being properly provided and ordered rent reductions.

         DOC. NOS.: ARL 10651-Q, ARL 11161-Q

         In these petitions, the owner contends that the Rent Administrator's 
         Orders are incorrect and should be modified because the buildings are 
         two family houses and therefore not subject to Rent Stabilization.

         The tenants did not answer these petitions, although given the 
         opportunity to do so.

         The Commissioner is of the opinion that these proceedings should be 
         remanded to the Rent Administrator.

         In order number ARL 11747-Q, involving the other tenant (J. Frazier) 
         in the building at 1916 Brookhaven Avenue, the Commissioner remanded 
         that proceeding to determine whether the building was not subject to 
         stabilization because it admittedly has a certificate of occupancy as 
         a two family house, or whether it was subject to stabilization as part 
         of a horizontal multiple dwelling.  (There were conflicting prior 
         Administrator's orders on this issue).  The remand order noted 
         specifically that on remand:

                   "A proper determination of this issue, on the 
                   merits, would require consideration of such 
                   factors as whether there is common or separate 
                   access to the various structures; whether there 
                   is a common or separate heating or hot water 
                   plant and other facilities, such as utility 
                   meters, post office boxes etc.; and whether there 
                   are common physical structures.  Consideration 
                   should also be given to the history of the 
                   premises, including whether the structures were 
                   erected a the same time; whether or not they have 
                   always had common ownership; whether there is a 
                   single deed and/or mortgage; and whether or not 
                   they could have been operated and/or sold 

         Nevertheless, the Administrator on remand, in order number ZBA-110009- 
         RP, issued May 14, 1987, found the premises not to be subject to the 
         Rent Stabilization Law based solely on the fact that the building at 
         1916 Brookhaven was a two family dwelling, a fact which was explicitly 
         stated on the Commissioner's remand order.  In short, the 
         Administrator failed to resolve the issue according to the detailed 
         directive of the remand order.

         The Commissioner notes that Section 2520.11(d) of the Rent 
         Stabilization Code explicitly states that the fact that Certificates 

         DOC. NOS.: ARL 10651-Q, ARL 11161-Q

         of Occupancy showing that a structure or structures are one or two 
         family dwellings does not necessarily exclude them from coverage under 
         Stabilization if they are otherwise part of a stabilized complex 
         containing six or more units with such common facilities as a sewer 
         line, water main or heating plant and was operated as a unit
         under common ownership on the date the building or complex first 
         became subject to Stabilization.

         Because there are conflicting Administrator's orders on the issue of 
         whether these dwellings are part of a horizontal multiple dwelling 
         within the meaning of the Code, and because order ZBA 110009-RP failed 
         to resolve the issue according to the directive of the Commissioner in 
         ARL 11747-Q, the Commissioner hereby remands these proceedings to the 
         Rent Administrator for a final determination, with notice to all 
         potentially affected tenants that the order on remand may be binding 
         on them, and giving them the opportunity to submit evidence on the 
         issue of jurisdiction.  On remand, the Administrator should resolve 
         the issue of jurisdiction after an inspection, following the above- 
         stated directives of the Commissioner in ARL 11747-Q and the standards 
         set forth in Salvati v. Eimicke, 537 N.Y.S.2d 16 (Ct.App. 1988); 
         motion for reargument or reconsideration denied, 540 N.Y.S. 2d 1006 
         (Ct. App. 1989).

         THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it 

         ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, granted to 
         the extent of remanding these proceedings to the Rent Administrator 
         for further processing in accordance with this order and opinion.  The 
         automatic stay of so much of the Rent Administrator's orders as 
         directed repairs and a retroactive rent abatement is hereby continued 
         until new orders are issued upon remand.  However, the Administrator's 
         determinations as to a prospective rent abatement is not stayed and 
         shall remain in effect until the Administrator issues new orders upon 


                                                 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