ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BC 710297-RO
                                  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  710297-RO
                       
                                              :  D.R.O. DOCKET NO.:
                                                 N-C-86-S-135-S 
                SOLGAR                    REALTY,                     INC.,
                                                              
                                                  

                              PETITIONER      : 
          ------------------------------------X 

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
            AND MODIFYING THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER

               On March 19, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on
          February 12, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 50 Clinton  Street,
          Hempstead, New York, concerning housing accommodations  known  as
          Apartment 26-A, 232  Cedarhurst  Avenue,  Cedarhurst,  New  York,
          wherein the Rent Administrator determined that a garage space was 
          a required service included in the  base  rent  and  ordered  the
          owner to pay the tenant $75.00 per month for the  period  October
          1, 1985 through January 1987 ($1200.00)  for  the  value  of  the
          service which was wrongfully denied the tenant. 

               The Commissioner has reviewed all of  the  evidence  in  the
          record and has carefully considered that portion  of  the  record
          relevant to the issues raised by the administrative appeal.  

               The tenant (Ludwig H. Kutlina) commenced this proceeding  on
          May 21, 1986 by filing a complaint alleging the owner refused  to
          provide a garage space at no  additional  cost  even  though  the
          prior tenants had received such a space.    

               In answer to  the  complaint,  the  owner  stated  that  the
          previous tenants did not have a garage space.

               From the Division records, the Administrator found  that  in
          prior  proceedings,  e.g.,  CTC-82-1,  CTC-82.3  and   CTC-82-38,
          involving the subject building it  had  been  found  that  garage
          space was included in the rent without additional charge.


          ADM. REVIEW DOCKETNO.: BC 710297-RO

               Accordingly, on January 9, 1987, the Administrator sent a 
          notice advising each party of the  findings  of  the  above-cited
          proceedings and attaching a copy of A and F Management and S.K.S.
          Associates  v.  DHCR,  Supreme  Court,  N.Y.   Co.,   Index   No.
          10255/83,June 3, 1983, J. Schwartz, in which the  court  affirmed
          the DHCR's  finding  in  Docket  Number  MINTC  82-37,  involving






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BC 710297-RO
          different premises, that the use of a garage space  on  the  ETPA
          base date (even without a  lease  clause  explicitly  authorizing
          such use) caused a garage space to become a required service that 
          the owner could not withdraw. 

               The owner was directed to provide the tenant with  a  garage
          space and the parties  were  given  twenty  days  to  advise  the
          Administrator of the status of the situation. 

               The owner did not  respond  to  that  notice.   However,  on
          January 23, 1987 the tenant filed a response stating in part that 
          the owner left a message on the  tenant's  answering  machine  on
          January 20, 1987 advising the tenant that he  would  be  given  a
          garage  space  but  that  the  owner  was  going  to  appeal  the
          Administrator's decision and that the tenant would be "penalized" 
          for the use of the garage during the pendency of the appeal.

               The tenant requested a rent abatement for the period when he 
          did not have use of a garage space.

               In the Order herein under  review  the  Administrator  found
          that the owner was now providing a  garage  space  based  on  the
          tenant's response and directed the owner to pay the tenant $75.00 
          per month for the period when the tenant did not have use of  the
          garage.

               In  this  petition,  the  owner  contends  that   the   Rent
          Administrator's Order is incorrect and should be modified because 
          a garage space was not a provided service on the base  date.   In
          the alternative, the owner requests that  the  $75.00  per  month
          refund should be reduced to $50.00 per month,  the  latter  being
          the "market value" of a garage space.  No  proof  is  offered  to
          support the allegation that  $50.00  per  month  is  the  correct
          market value.  Attached to the owner's petition is a copy of  the
          lease in effect during 1973-1975,  including  the  date,  May  1,
          1975, when Cedarhurst came under the jurisdiction of the ETPA.

               The owner had only submitted copies of renewal  lease  forms
          for the prior tenant to the Administrator.   No  explanation  for
          not submitting this lease to the Administrator is given.




               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should 
          be denied.

               An administrative appeal is not a de  novo  proceeding  but,
          absent good cause, is limited to the evidence and issues which 
          were before the Administrator.  Accordingly, the lease submitted
          for the first time on appeal will not be accepted as evidence. 

               Parenthetically, the Commissioner notes that Clause 39, part 
          of the printed lease form, of the lease states in part:

                    "That no out-door parking space for pleasure 
                    automobiles shall be used by the Tenant other
                    than the space designated by the Landlord.  In
                    connection with the said out-door parking space, 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BC 710297-RO
                    it is understood as follows:  Tenant shall not 
                    make any repairs to automobile or wash  same in  
                    said space; right to use said space shall not be
                    assigned; automobile shall be placed in said 
                    space by Tenant at own risk; privilege to use
                    said parking space shall terminate upon the
                    termination of the tenancy for Tenant's 
                    apartment.

                    "It is further understood that Landlord shall
                    not be obligated to supply any attendants and
                    Landlord shall not become liable to any person
                    for injuries to any person, or loss or damage 
                    to property arising out of, or connected with     
                    the use of the said parking space.  Tenant 
                    hereby releases and discharges Landlord and 
                    owner from any and all claims which the 
                    Tenant has or might have for damages for 
                    personal injuries or damage to property 
                    arising out of or connected with, or in-
                    cidental to the use of the said parking 
                    space.  Notwithstanding anything contained
                    herein, Landlord reserves the right to 
                    terminate parking space agreement at any 
                    time upon two days' notice in writing by 
                    mail to the Tenant."

               Clause 47, a typed rider, reads as follows:

                    "If the landlord shall furnish to the tenant
                    indoor or outdoor garage space, the tenant
                    shall store and park the tenant's 
                    automobile at the tenant's own risk, and


                    the landlord shall not be liable for any
                    injury to the person or property of the 
                    tenant, or loss by theft, or damage 
                    otherwise, of said automobile or its 
                    contents from all and every cause 
                    whatsoever, including fire, the elements,
                    violation of law, or negligence on the 
                    part of the landlord, its servants, agents, 
                    employees or other tenants.

                    "The tenant further agrees to indemnify and
                    hold the landlord harmless for any and all
                    claims, damages or loss asserted against or
                    sustained by the landlord as a result of the
                    tenant's negligence in the parking and/or 
                    storing of the tenant's automobile in the 
                    garage.  It is expressly agreed and 
                    understood that the landlord shall not be
                    regarded as, nor have any of the duties of,
                    a bailee of the tenant's automobile during 
                    the term of this agreement, or any renewal,
                    extension or holdover hereunder.  The 
                    landlord may, from time to time, re-allocate 
                    the space within which the tenant may park






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BC 710297-RO
                    tenant's car, at any time, at landlord's
                    sole discretion, during the tenancy without 
                    landlord's obligation to the tenant or 
                    reduction in rent for such space."

               While not  definitive,  it  is  clear  that  the  lease,  if
          accepted, would tend to support the tenant's  view-especially  in
          conjunction with the history of the subject building as found  in
          dockets CTC 82-1, 82-3, 82-37, cited above.  

               Since the owner has offered no evidence  to  contradict  the
          Administrator's finding,  the  Commissioner  hereby  affirms  the
          Administrator's  finding  that  a  garage  space  is  a  required
          service.

               Similarly, the owner has offered no proof that $50.00  is  a
          more accurate estimate of the value  of  garage  space  than  the
          $75.00 used by  the  Administrator.   (The  Administrator's  file
          shows that the $75.00 used was  based  on  file  number  CTC-82-1
          wherein the garage  space  value  was  $70.00  in  1982  for  the
          subject building.  The Administrator added $5.00 to  account  for
          the passage of  two  years).   Accordingly,  the  Administrator's
          $75.00 value is hereby affirmed.



               Finally, the Commissioner notes that in  a  letter  received
          February 18, 1987 the tenant correctly pointed out the  following
          error in the Administrator's order:  On page one of the Order the 
          Administrator correctly stated the complaining  tenant's  initial
          lease commenced in October of 1984.  However, on page two and  in
          the computation the Administrator incorrectly used October  1985,
          thereby reducing the correct amount owed the tenant by $900.00.

               Section 2510.4 of the Tenant Protection Regulations requires 
          a petition against an Administrator's order to be filed "only  on
          a  form  prescribed  by  the  Commissioner."   Accordingly,   the
          tenant's letter can not be construed as a petition.

               Nevertheless, the Commissioner notes that the  order  states
          that "tenant had been without  the  service  of  a  garage  space
          included in the rent  from  [the]  inception  of  [the]  tenancy,
          October, 1985 (sic) to the present, and is,  therefore,  entitled
          to a refund of the value of the garage space  from  October  1985
          (sic) through January 1987."

               Thus, the owner was fully informed  that  the  Administrator
          intended to require a $75.00 payment from the  inception  of  the
          lease.  Accordingly, the Commissioner hereby finds, on the motion 
          of the Commissioner, that  the  Administrator's  substitution  of
          October 1985 for October 1984  is  an  irregularity  in  a  vital
          matter; obvious not only to the parties but to anyone reading the 
          Order.  Accordingly, the Administrator's Order is hereby modified 
          by adding $900.00 for the period October, 1984-October,  1985  to
          the amount owed the tenant by the owner, for a total of $2100.00.

               This order may, upon the expiration of the period  in  which
          the owner may institute a proceeding pursuant to Article seventy 
          eight of the civil practice law and rules, be filed and  enforced






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BC 710297-RO
          by the tenant in the same manner as a judgment or not  in  excess
          of twenty percent thereof per month may  be  offset  against  any
          rent thereafter due the owner.

               THEREFORE,  in  accordance   with   the   Emergency   Tenant
          Protection Act of 1974 and Regulations, it is











               ORDERED, that this petition for  administrative  review  be,
          and the same hereby is, denied, and, that the order of  the  Rent
          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, modified in  accordance
          with this Order and Opinion. 

          ISSUED:







                                                                        
                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          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