Adm. Rev. Docket No.: ARL12419W & ARL12420W
                                    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  SJR 6904                      
          APPEAL OF                           
                                               ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW         
                                               DOCKET NOS.: ARL12419W   
           ROBERT ROCHELLE COMPANY                       &  ARL12420W        
             
                                               DRO DOCKET NO.:     
                                                      WNR85-S-4-9-0AD
                                                     
                                PETITIONER     TENANTS: VARIOUS          
          ----------------------------------X

          ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND  
                            REVOKING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER



          The above-named petitioner-landlord timely filed two Petitions for 
          Administrative Review against an order issued on July 9, 1986,    
          by the Rent Administrator at 55 Church Street, White Plains, New 
          York concerning housing accommodations known as Various Apartments 
          at 199 and 205 North Avenue, New Rochelle, New York, wherein the 
          Administrator determined the owner's application for a 
          determination as to whether or not apartments 1, 2, 5 and 6 at 199 
          North Avenue (there being five residential units in that building 
          with Apartment 4, occupied by Leticia da Hora, being considered 
          subject to the Emergency Housing Rent Control Law by the landlord) 
          and apartments 1 and 2 at 205 North Avenue (there being only two 
          residential units in that building) are exempt from regulation 
          under the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (ETPA) by finding 
          that said apartments are subject to such regulation as they are 
          situated in a horizontal multiple dwelling containing six or more 
          residential units.

          Subsequently, the landlord filed a Petition in the Supreme Court, 
          Westchester County, under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice 
          Law and Rules, in the nature of an application seeking a writ of 
          mandamus, asking the Court to direct the Commissioner to determine 
          the landlord's Petition for Administrative Review. Thereafter, 
          pursuant to a Stipulation entered into between the Division and the 
          landlord, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the evidence relevant to 












          Adm. Rev. Docket No.: ARL12419W & ARL12420W

          the issues raised in the administrative appeal.

          The Commissioner notes that the landlord filed one Petition for 
          Administrative Review as to 199 North Avenue and another as to 205 
          North Avenue: both against the same order. Pursuant to 
          9NYCRR2510.1(c), these Petitions are consolidated herein.

          The issue in this proceeding is whether the landlord met his burden 
          of proof hereinbelow. 


          The proceeding below was commenced by the landlord's application 
          for a determination of the status of the subject apartments. 


          Both below and on this appeal, the landlord has, in substance,
          asserted that the subject buildings* are separate and distinct from 
          one another and they do not constitute a horizontal multiple 
          dwelling.


          Neither below nor on appeal does the record contain a response from 
          any tenant which addresses the issues raised by the landlord's 
          application and/or appeal. The responses received by the Division 
          indicate opposition to the application below based on the 
          landlord's failure to properly maintain each of the subject 
          buildings.

          The Administrator indicated in his order that the finding as to the 
          existence of a horizontal multiple dwelling was made "inasmuch as 
          the buildings have a common heating plant and is [sic] operated as 
          a unit under common ownership". The Administrator also noted in the 
          order that each building has  separate water and electrical 
          service.

          This proceeding was brought by the landlord, therefore, the burden 
          of proof rested on the landlord. The landlord produced a statement 



                                                                     
          * There is a one story taxpayer, which is also owned by the 
          landlord, between 199 and 205 North Avenue. There is no question 
          but that said taxpayer contains no residential units; it is known 
          as 201 North Avenue. The Commissioner notes that the record 
          indicates that there is no building known as 203 North Avenue on 
          the same side of North Avenue as the above described buildings.

          from its insurance company and utility bills that indicated that 
          the two buildings, 199 and 205, are separately insured and 
          separately billed for utilities. 







          Adm. Rev. Docket No.: ARL12419W & ARL12420W

          The inspection conducted  by the DHCR staff confirmed that there 
          are five residential units in 199  and two in 205. 
          The Commissioner finds that the substantial evidence herein 
          indicates that other than common ownership and a common heating 
          plant, the two buildings in question have no connection or 
          similarity. The Commissioner notes that common ownership and a 
          common heating plant alone are insufficient to support a finding of 
          a horizontal multiple dwelling. Therefore, the Commissioner finds 
          that the Administrator erred in finding that these buildings 
          constitute a horizontal multiple dwelling.


          THEREFORE, pursuant to all of the applicable statutes and 
          regulations, it is

          ORDERED, that this Petition be, and the same hereby is granted and 
          that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is revoked; 
          and it is further 

          ORDERED, that the above described apartments 1, 2, 5 and 6 at 199 
          North Avenue, New Rochelle and apartments 1 and 2 at 205 North 
          Avenue, New Rochelle are not subject to regulation under the ETPA 
          as they are not contained in a building containing six or more 
          residential units and they are not contained in a building which is 
          part of a horizontal multiple dwelling.

          ISSUED:



                                                                          
                                        JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                        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