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
    

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