DHCR Decisions
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BC 410354-RT
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.: BC 410354-RT
: DRO DOCKET NO. 38880
MARIA BELLOSTAS
AND
MARIA DE JUAN, PETITIONERS :
-----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW AND REMANDING PROCEEDING TO ADMINISTRATOR
On March 30, 1987, the abovee-named petitioner-tenants filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
March 2, 1987, by a Rent Administrator concerning housing
accommodations known as Apartment 12B at 151 East 80th Street, New
York, New York, wherein the District Rent Administrator dismissed
the tenant's overcharge complaint and fair market rent appeal
because the complainant was not the prime tenant but a subtenant.
This proceeding was originally commenced on September 25,
1984 by the filing of a Tenant's Objection Form challenging the
owner's initial apartment registration statement. The co-tenants
who are mother and daughter allege that they were never served
with the apartment registration and that the owner refused their
request for a rental history. The complainants also state that
they assumed occupancy on September 16, 1982 at a rent of
$2,162.50 per month. The complainants identified the owner as the
Cooperative Development Company at 330 West 58th Street, Suite
214, New York, New York.
The record below contains the following two orders:
A copy of an order of the Civil Court, New York County, that
was issued on June 19, 1986 in a holdover proceeding in which the
presiding Judge Alice Schlesinger dismissed a cross-motion for
summary judgment of petitioner Philip C. Goldfarb on the ground
that he was an "illusory" prime tenant, and granted the motion of
the complaining tenants Maria Bellostas and Maria De Juan for a
summary judgment. As a result, the court declared that the
tenants were entitled to continued possession of the apartment and
the protection of the Rent Stabilization Law.
Subsequently, in an order issued under Docket Number L
000627-RV on July 15, 1986, the Rent Administrator determined that
Maria Martinez Bellostas was the prime tenant of the subject
apartment and was therefore eligible to have all the rights
afforded a Rent Stabilized tenant. The order further directed the
owner, the Cooperative Development Company, c/o Philip Goldfarb,
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BC 410354-RT
to offer a lease to the tenant in accordance with the procedures
detailed in Section 23A of the former Rent Stabilization Code.
Both of the above rulings were sent to the Rent Administrator
of the instant proceeding along with a lett r from the subject-
tenant's attorney, dated October 14, 1986, which requested the
expeditious determination of the overcharge complaint as well as
all other proceedings concerning the subject tenants.
In a letter dated November 4, 1986 the attorney for the
registered tenant, Philip Goldfarb, requested the DHCR docket
number of the overcharge complaint filed by the sub-tenants so
that he might have the opportunity to respond.
In an order dated March 2, 1987 the Rent Administrator
determined to dismiss the complaint of rent overcharges and fair
market rent appeal because the complainant, Maria Martinez
Bellostas, was a sub-tenant of the prime tenant, Maria De Juan,
and had no right to file such a claim unless the prime tenant was
named as defendant.
In their petition, dated March 26, 1987, the tenants assert
that the Administrator's order is erroneous in view of the
Division's own finding that Maria Martinez Bellostas was the prime
tenant in its order of July 15, 1986 directing a lease renewal.
They state that Maria Bellostas and Maria DeJuan, who are mother
and daughter, respectively, are both prime tenants, and that the
overcharge complaint and fair market rent appeal were legitimate
because the registered tenant, Philip Goldfarb, was really an
"illusory" tenant standing in for the owner of the building, as
was determined in the Civil Court Order of June 19, 1986.
In an answer dated May 27, 1987, the registered owner, the
Cooperative Estates Co., by its attorney, contends that there has
been no final determination of the legitimate tenancy, since the
owner has filed a PAR of the order directing the lease renewal as
well as an appeal of the order from Civil Court. Furthermore, the
owner contends that any action by DHCR to enforce the orders would
severely prejudice the actual prime tenant, which the owner
maintains is Philip Goldfarb.
In a supplement to its answer, the owner submits a separate
lease history for consideration in determining the lawful rent in
the event that the Commissioner grants the petition of the
complainants. The owner also submits documentation of
improvements to the apartment in 1980 and 1982, which were made
between tenancies for which the owner claims increases. In its
rent calculation chart, the owner claims a lawful rent of
$2,050.91 per month for the two year vacancy lease commencing
September 16, 1982; the rent actually charged was $2,162.50.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the tenants' petition
should be granted and that the proceeding be remanded to the Rent
Administrator.
The full record of the proceeding establishes that the
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BC 410354-RT
Administrator incorrectly dismissed the overcharge complaint and
fair market rent appeal of Maria Martinez Bellostas because she
was a subtenant, thereby contradicting the earlier orders of the
Civil Court and DHCR which determined that she was the prime
tenant and was therefore entitled to all rights under the Rent
Stabilization Law. The determination of the Housing Court was
that the prior tenant, Philip C. Goldfarb was "illusory," and the
owner has submitted nothing in either the record below or on
administrative appeal to show that the court decision was
overturned on appeal. It is also noted that the PAR against the
lease renewal order was denied (ARL 13059-L, issued on August 25,
1988), and there is no evidence of the filing of a judicial
appeal of that opinion. The Commissioner therefore finds that the
tenants' complaint should be processed on the merits and the
proceeding is hereby remanded to the Rent Administrator for that
purpose.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that the tenants' petition be and the same hereby
is granted, that the Administrator's order be and the same hereby
is revoked and that the proceeding be and the same hereby is
remanded to the Rent Administrator in accordance with this order
and opinion.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|