DOCKET NUMBER: BB 210074-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.: BB 210074-RO
:
DRO DOCKET.: 24611
J.R.D.
MANAGEMENT COMPANY PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN PART
On February 26, 1987, the above named petitioner-owner filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order issued January 13, 1987 by the
District Rent Administrator, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York,
concerning housing accommodations known as Apartment Number 6J, at 616
East 18th Street, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the District Rent
Administrator determined that various services and equipment are being
provided to the subject apartment and amended the apartment registration
statement to reflect the record.
The Commissioner has reviewed all evidence in the record and has
carefully considered portion of the record relevant to the issues raised
by the administrative appeal.
The original proceeding was commenced by the tenant filing a Tenant's
Objection form assigned Docket No. 10867 challenging the service
registration statement filed by the owner. The tenant alleged, among
other things, that the owner provided four(4) two doorman, sixteen hours a
day a porter, and a superintendent. The owners registration stated, in
pertinent part, that it provided four(4) full-time maintenance service
employees, and that the door/lobby attendants were provided fifteen hours
a day, ninety hours a week from Monday through Saturday. However in a
letter to the Tenant's Council dated July 19, 1984, the owner had stated
that the porter also performed doorman services and that services were
provided on Sunday.
On August 20, 1984, the tenant filed an amended Tenant's Objection form
(assigned separate Docket No. 24611) stating, in pertinent part, that the
owner was providing a full-time superintendent, a full time porter and two
full-time floor/lobby attendants, and alleging that the floor/lobby
attendants were working as porters.
On September 30, 1985 the Administrator issued an Order under Docket No.
10867, finding, in pertinent part, that the owner provided four full time
maintenance employees and that door/lobby attendant services were
provided. The Administrator's order was silent as to the hours and days
floor/lobby attendant services were provided.
DOCKET NUMBER: BB 210074-RO
The owner filed a PAR (Docket NO. ARL 05569-K) appealing the
Administrator's order on other grounds. The Commissioner's PAR order,
dated July 31, 1986 was silent as to the issue of employees and
floor/lobby attendant services.
On October 14, 1986, the Administrator served a copy of the tenant's
amended objection (Docket No. 24,611) on the owner. The owner responded
that the issue of full time employees and floor/lobby attendant services
were previously covered under Docket No. 10867 and observed that there had
been no PAR by the tenant challenging to the Administrator's prior
determination.
On January 13, 1987 the Administrator issued an order under Docket No.
24611, which is the subject of the instant appeal. Therein, the
Administrator represented that the tenant had alleged that the owner
provided "four (4) full-time employees, one (1) full-time superintendent
and two full time doormen (16 hours per [week])" and that the owner had
replied "that two [of the] four employees are doormen and are listed."
The Administrator's order found that, based on the evidence of record, the
owner provided four(4) full-time employees 15 hours per day/90 hours per
week.
In the petition, the owner points out it had indicated that only its
doormen worked 15 hours per day/90 hours per week, and that the
Administrator erred by misrepresenting the owner's answer and making all
employees' working hours to be 15 hours per day/90 hours a week.
The petitioner also asserts that the Administrator improperly found that
screens were provided, alleging that the service was never raised by the
tenant.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
petition should be granted in part.
The petitioner is correct that the owner's response limited the 15 hours
per day/90 hours per week work schedule to doormen only, and not to the
owner's other employees. Accordingly, the Administrator's order and
services registration shall reflect that the owner provides four full time
employees and that the 15 hours per day/90 hours per week work schedule
shall apply to doormen only. Based on submissions in the prior
proceedings under Docket No. 10876, the Administrator's order and service
registration shall also reflect that the porter provides additional
floor/lobby attendant services.
With regard to screens, the Commissioner notes that the tenant's
objections both under Docket Nos. 10867 (item 15) and under Docket No.,
24611 (item 17) stated that the owner provided screens. Moreover, the
Administrator's order under Docket No. 10867 found that, based on the
owner's reply, that screens were provided and that the services
registration statement would be amended to reflect that screens were a
required service.
The owner failed to raise any objection to the findings in PAR Docket No.
ARL 5569-L, and can no longer dispute that the screens are provided.
DOCKET NUMBER: BB 210074-RO
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, the
Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, and Chapter 403 of the Laws of
1983, as amended by Chapter 102 of the Laws of 1984, as implemented by
Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is granted, in part and
that the District Rent Administrator's Order, be and the same hereby is
modified, as provided above.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
