ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. ART - 10607 - L

                                  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. ART - 10607 - L
           
                                              :   D.R.O. DOCKET NO.
                                                  L - 002913 - B
               DAVID                                                GOLDBERG
                                                            
                                 PETITIONER   :  
          ------------------------------------X 

           ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW,
                      AND REMANDING PROCEEDING TO ADMINISTRATOR

               On  May  27,  1986,  the   above-referenced   former   tenant
          ("complainant" and  "petitioner"  herein)  filed  a  petition  for
          administrative review of an order issued on April 28, 1986, by the 
          District Rent Administrator, Jamaica,  New  York,  concerning  the
          housing accommodation known as apartment  702  at  118  West  72nd
          Street, New York, New York, in which order the Rent  Administrator
          had  terminated  a  complaint  of  a  decrease  in   building-wide
          services. 

               This proceeding originated  on  October  3,  1985,  when  the
          petitioner and other tenants at the  subject  premises  filed  the
          aforementioned complaint, which stated inter  alia  that  although
          the building was registered with the above-referenced Division  as
          a hotel, hotel services (e.g., maid service)  were  not  provided.
          The tenants therefore sought reclassification of the  building  to
          apartment status, and "rebate adjustments" for the hotel  services
          that had not  been received.   

               The  owner's  Answer  to  Notice  and/or  Application,  filed
          November  15,  1985,  stated  inter  alia  that  "[n]o  tenant  is
          receiving less hotel services presently than they did at any  time
          during their tenancy."
           
               Four days later the tenants filed an addendum to  the  effect
          that, contrary to hotel  practice,  they  had  always  paid  their
          electricity bills directly to Consolidated Edison. 

               After   the   Administrator   sent   the   owner   a   "Hotel
          Reclassification Proceeding -- Notice to Owner and  Answer  Form",
          the owner returned same on February 10, 1986, making the following 
          assertions.





               "On November 6, 1985, an amended Certificate of Occupancy was 
          issued by the Department of Buildings.  The  subject  building  is






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. ART - 10607 - L
          now  a  Class  A  apartment  building.   A  copy  of  the  amended
          Certificate of Occupancy is annexed hereto.  

               "On November 8, 1985, the subject building  was  conveyed  to
          Roblinn Corp.,  ["a  cooperative  corporation"]  and  the  subject
          building was converted into a cooperative . . . .

               "Subsequent to the conversion of the building, [some tenants] 
          purchased their apartments . . . [S]uch  tenants  no  longer  have
          standing to challenge the classification of the subject building." 

               In the ensuing  "Order  Denying  Application  or  Terminating
          Proceeding" the Administrator found that  the  apartment  was  not
          subject to the Rent Stabilization Code because "[t]he tenants have 
          purchased the units pursuant to a co-op conversion."   

               In the present petition, the complainant argues that  tenants
          who later became cooperative owners  should  receive  rebates  for
          rent paid, while they were tenants, attributable to hotel services 
          they did not receive.  The former owner ("owner" herein) responds: 
          that the  petition  must  be  denied  because,  ownership  of  the
          building  having  been  transferred  to  a  cooperative  and   the
          complainant no longer paying rent, the matter  is  moot;  that  in
          accordance with  prior  law,  the  owner  had  merely  made  hotel
          services available for those tenants requesting them, rather  than
          providing them to all tenants; that no tenant having made  such  a
          request, no hotel services were provided; and that therefore,  "no
          tenant can complain truthfully that the services were included  in
          their rent."  

               Having  carefully   considered   the   record   herein,   the
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition herein should  be
          granted  and  the  matter  remanded  to  the   Administrator   for
          calculation of the refund due to petitioner. 

               When the complainant commenced this proceeding he was a rent 
          paying tenant.  The fact that the Commissioner can no longer order 
          the hotel-owner to provide hotel services on pain of losing  hotel
          status, does not moot the complaint herein, because  one  item  of
          relief -- the refund of excess rent sought by  petitioner  --  can
          still be provided.  The Administrator erred  in  determining  that
          the present statuses of  building  and  complainant  preclude  all
          relief  herein;  the  matter  must  therefore  be   remanded   for
          consideration of such relief. 

               That consideration, however, need not include  the  issue  of
          whether the services in  question  were  provided,  as  the  owner
          admits they never were.  The law has required since July 15, 1982, 
          that hotels provide -- not merely "make  available"  --  customary
          hotel services, and the owner has repeatedly stated that because 




          hotel services were never requested, they were not provided.  The 
          Administrator need only determine, then, the amount of the  rebate
          that is due to the complainant for the owner's failure to  provide
          the services referred to in the complaint.  







          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. ART - 10607 - L
               THEREFORE, in accordance with  the  provisions  of  the  Rent
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is

               ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and 
          the same hereby  is,  granted  and  the  proceeding  remanded  for
          determination of the amount the owner must repay to petitioner  as
          set forth above, and that the order of the Rent Administrator  be,
          and the same hereby is, revoked. 

          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