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
|
