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
|
