SJR 4236; ART O6300 Q
                                  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     S.J.R. 4236 REMIT

          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  ART 06300 Q
                                                  
               FRANK WEINSTEIN                    RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.:  23331
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


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

               By order of Hon. Cosmo J. Di Tucci, J.S.C., dated October 30, 
          1989, this matter has been remitted to the Commissioner for 
          reconsideration of an Order and Opinion Granting Administrative 
          Appeal and modifying Administrator's Order.

               On March 14, 1986 the above named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y., issued February 
          13, 1986.  The order concerned housing accommodations known as Apt. 
          2B located at 66-40 108th Street, Forest Hills, N.Y. wherein the 
          Administrator terminated the tenant's rent registration  objection 
          proceeding based on a finding that the subject apartment is not 
          subject to the Rent Stabilization Code.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 
          appeal.

          The tenant commenced this petition by filing an objection to the 
          owner's apartment and building services registration for the 
          subject unit.  The tenant stated that:

                    1.   The blinds/shades, window screens, new kitchen 
                         floor, security guard and dog were omitted 
                         from the registration, 

                    2.   The building services registration (Form RR-3) is 
                         not posted in the building,

                    3.   The cooking fuel is paid for by the tenant.













          SJR 4236; ART O6300 Q

               In response to this objection the owner acknowledged that the 
          tenant pays for the cooking fuel.  The owner also stated that, 
          while it will continue to maintain blinds, shades and window 
          screens where they exist it is not responsible for providing new 
          ones.  The owner further stated that it was under no obligation to 
          do more than maintain the existing kitchen floor, that security 
          guards and watchdogs were not base date services, that the building 
          services registration was posted and that the premises had been 
          converted to cooperative ownership.

               The Administrator dismissed the objection and terminated the 
          proceeding based on the determination that the subject apartment 
          was exempt from rent stabilization.

               On appeal, the Commissioner, in an order issued May 23, 1989, 
          determined that the apartment was, in fact, subject to rent 
          stabilization.  Turning to the merits of the tenant's objection, 
          the Commissioner further found that the blinds/shades, window 
          screens and kitchen floorings were required apartment services.  
          Further, the Commissioner ruled that security guards and dogs were 
          required building services.  The petition was granted and the order 
          here under review modified accordingly.

               The owner then commenced a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 
          of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) to annul the 
          Commissioner's determination.  DHCR then agreed to a remit of this 
          matter so that the Commissioner might reconsider the order issued 
          on May 23, 1989.  By order dated October 30, 1989 this matter was 
          remitted to the Commissioner for such reconsideration.

               After careful review of the evidence in the record the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted 
          in part and the Rent Administrator's order should be revoked.

               The Commissioner notes that the issues raised herein have been 
          previously considered by the Administrator with regard to other 
          apartments of the subject building.  The following determinations 
          have been made:

                    1.    Docket No. 37385 (Apt.6-A)-- owner stated that 
                          blinds/shades and window screens are required
                          services but security guard with dog is not.  
                          Administrator agreed

                    2.    Docket No. 37208 (Apt. 4-F)-- owner again stated   
                          that screens and blinds are required services but
                          guard and dog are not.  Administrator agreed

                    3.   Docket No. 23298 (Apt. Q-3-3A)-- Administrator 
                         issues determination in accordance with above
          The Administrator also found that the security guard/dog was not a 
          required service in Docket No. 52932 (Apt. 6-F), Docket No. 49988 






          SJR 4236; ART O6300 Q

          (Apt. 5-E) and Docket No. 48336 (Apt. 1-F).

          Based on the owner's submissions in the above mentioned 
          registration proceedings, the Commissioner finds that the 
          blinds/shades and screens are required base date services.  The 
          registration form is modified to so reflect. However, based on 
          the foregoing, the  security guard and dog are found not to be 
          required base date services.

          With regard to the kitchen floor covering, the Commissioner 
          has ruled that certain services, such as linoleum, are required 
          services but do not have to be specifically listed in the 
          registration statement (see Docket No. AL 110270 RT).  The 
          Commissioner finds this rule appropriate to be applied to the 
          instant facts.  The owner need not amend the registration 
          statement to include the kitchen floor.

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          granted in part, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and 
          the same hereby is, revoked.

          ISSUED:



                                         
                                            JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
  Acting 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