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 
    

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