ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI 410046 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.               
                                                 BI 410046 RO 
                                              :
                                                 DISTRICT RENT              
                                                 ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET     
                                                 NO. 045773           
            19 EAST 80TH STREET ASSOCIATES                                  
                                 
                                             
                                                  

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

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On  September  8,  1987,  the  above-named  owner  filed   a
          petition for administrative review of an order issued  on  August
          20, 1987 by a District Rent Administrator concerning the  housing
          accommodation known as Apartment 2A, 19  East  80th  Street,  New
          York, New York.

               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 petition for review.  

               This proceeding was commenced by the tenant's filing  of  an
          objection to  the  1984  building  services  registration,  dated
          September 26, 1984.  The tenant alleged, among other things, that 
          a doorman is a required service for 16 hours a day, seven days  a
          week. 

               The Division of Housing  and  Community  Renewal  (D.H.C.R.)
          mailed to the owner a notice, on June 18,  1987,  which  directed
          the owner to submit to the rent agency its answer to the tenant's 
          complaint, within twenty days of the aforementioned date, and  to
          include any relevant documentation to substantiate its answer. 




               The  owner's  answer,  dated  July  9,  1987,  alleged  that
          doorman services are not for 16 hours, 7 days a  week,  and  that
          the tenant may inspect the owner's payroll history and  schedules
          by making an appointment.  The owner  also  alleged  that  it  is
          maintaining all required services.   

               The tenant's response to the owner's answer, dated July  30,
          1987, alleged that during the tenant's initial occupancy (July 1, 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI 410046 RO
          1973) there were two full eight-hour  doorman  shifts,  servicing
          the building sixteen hours daily, seven days per week,  but  that
          doorman service had been eliminated on Thursdays from 3:00 PM  to
          11:00 PM and on Sundays from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM. 

               In the order reviewed herein  the  Administrator  determined
          that the apartment registration shall  include  doorman  service,
          for sixteen hours per day, seven days a week.

               The owner's petition alleges that the sixteen hour  per  day
          doorman service  applies  only  on  Monday,  Tuesday,  Wednesday,
          Friday and Saturday.  The owner  bases  this  allegation  on  the
          subject building's managing  agent's  statement:   "I  have  been
          agent for the last 13 years and there  has  always  been  only  8
          hours doorman service on Thursday and Sundays."

               The tenant's answer to the owner's petition, dated  December
          16, 1987, points out that the owner  does  not  substantiate  its
          allegations with any evidence, other than  the  managing  agent's
          personal recollection.  The  tenant  also  points  out  that  the
          owner's answer before the District Rent  Administrator  mentioned
          payroll records that allegedly exist, but that the owner did  not
          produce these records.  

               To her answer the tenant attaches a letter, dated October 4, 
          1985, submitted by the owner to the rent agency, pertaining to  a
          separate  proceeding,  in  which  the  owner  states   that   the
          building's payroll records dating back to 1968  and  1974  cannot
          be located.

               On December 24, 1987, the owner submitted a response to  the
          tenant's answer  reiterating  its  assertions  contained  in  its
          petition, including its invitation to any tenant  to  review  the
          building's payroll records.

               On February 26, 1991, the owner submitted a  letter  to  the
          rent  agency  requesting  that  this  proceeding  (Administrative
          Review  Docket  No.  BI   410046   RO)   be   consolidated   with
          Administrative Review  Docket  No.  BA  410150  RT,  which  is  a



          tenants' petition asserting, among other things, that the 
          Administrator's order (under Docket No. L-002406-B)  should  have
          ordered a reduction in the tenants' rents for the  diminution  of
          services noted in the order. 

               The tenants, on March 18, 1991, filed their objection to the 
          owner's  request  for  consolidating   the   two   aforementioned
          proceedings.  The tenants assert that the two  proceedings  raise
          separate issues.  As the tenants point out,  the  petition  under
          Docket No. BI  410046  RO,  raises  the  sole  issue  of  doorman
          service, but that issue is not raised in the  tenants'  petition,
          under Docket No. BA 410150 RT. 

               On April 29, 1991, the owner submitted to  the  rent  agency
          the subject building's payroll records for the year 1968 and  the
          owner alleges that these  records  show  that  on  Thursdays  and
          Sundays only one doorman was on duty for eight hours. 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI 410046 RO

               After careful consideration,  the  Commissioner  is  of  the
          opinion that the owner's petition should be denied.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the two  proceedings
          under Administrative Review Docket  Nos.  BA  410150  RT  and  BI
          410046 RO, should not be consolidated.   Section  2529.1  of  the
          Rent Stabilization Code states:  "The Commissioner  may,  in  his
          discretion, consolidate two or more PAR's which have at least one 
          ground in common."  The  Commissioner  finds  that  there  is  no
          common  ground  in  the  issues  raised  in  the   aforementioned
          petitions.  The issues that are raised in the tenants'  petition,
          under Docket No. BA 410150 RT,   are  whether  the  complainants'
          rents should be reduced  as  the  Administrator  determined  that
          there  had  been  a  diminution  of  services,   and   that   the
          Administrator's order should have found a diminution  of  all  of
          the items listed in the tenants' service complaint.  The  tenants
          do not raise the issue of doorman service in their petition.   As
          the owner did not file a petition in that proceeding,  the  issue
          of the number of hours doorman service is to be provided  is  not
          an issue in the aforementioned proceeding, but that is  the  only
          issue in this proceeding.  Even if a common ground could be found 
          in the two proceedings, it would still be a proper exercise of 
          the Commissioner's discretion in denying the owner's request  for
          consolidation, because of the possibility of confusion, among the 
          parties, in understanding the final determination rendered by the 
          Commissioner, due to the complexity of the issues that are raised 
          in  the  two  proceedings  that  are  before  the   Commissioner.





               The Commissioner finds that based upon the record  that  was
          before the Administrator in this proceeding, the  Administrator's
          determination pertaining to the  level  of  doorman  service  was
          proper.  The Commissioner notes  that  in  the  notice  that  was
          mailed  to  the  owner,  on  June  18,  1987,  the  Administrator
          requested that the owner include any  relevant  documentation  to
          substantiate its answer.  The Commissioner further notes that the 
          owner did not submit any documentation or probative  evidence  to
          the Administrator to substantiate its  answer.  Furthermore,  the
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner does not adequately 
          explain why it did not  submit  the  subject  building's  payroll
          records to the rent agency, until  over  three  years  after  the
          issuance of the Administrator's order.   Any  assertions  by  the
          owner that it could not locate the payroll records until 1991  is
          belied  by  the  owner's  answer  which  was  submitted  to   the
          Administrator on July 14,  1987,  which  invited  the  tenant  to
          inspect the building's payrolls for any year.  

               Furthermore, by the time the Administrator isseud his  order
          in this proceeding (Docket No. 045773), on August 20,  1987,  the
          rent agency had already issued Docket No. L-002406-B, on December 
          9, 1986, which was a final determination of the issue of  doorman
          service, as the owner did not file a petition for  administrative
          review of that order.  Accordingly, the Commissioner  finds  that
          the owner's petition should be denied, as it is the law  of  this
          case and res judicata, that  the  owner  is  to  provide  doorman






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI 410046 RO
          service during the hours stated in the Administrator's order.    

               It is noted that the Commissioner issued an order, dated 
          January 24, 1990, and an amended order dated  February  7,  1990,
          after conducing a hearing.  Both orders found that the owner had
          not complied with  the  Administrator's  earlier  order,  in  the
          proceeding under Docket No. L-002406-B, in that the owner had not 
          restored doorman service on Thursday 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M.  and
          Sundays 7:00 A.M. TO 3:00 P.M.     

               The Commissioner further  notes  that  the  owner  filed  an
          Article 78 proceeding for judicial review of  the  aforementioned
          order of the Commissioner.  The Supreme Court, New  York  County,
          under Index No. 5992/90, affirmed the Commissioner's order.   The
          Court stated that: 

                    The Deputy Commissioner's conclusion that
                    the District Rent Administrator's order 
                    imposed a duty upon petitioner to ...
                    maintain a doorman during the Thursday
                    and Sunday shifts is perfectly logical.



               The Appellate  Division,  First  Department,  by  order  and
          decision entered  on  October  22,  1991,  affirmed  the  Supreme
          Court's decision.

               With regard to the  payroll records which the owner  submits
          for the first time upon administrative review,  the  Commissioner
          notes that the owner has not  established  that  they  could  not
          reasonably have been offered or included in the proceeding before 
          the District Rent Administrator.  They are therefore outside  the
          scope of the Commissioner's review in this proceeding.   
             
               THEREFORE, in accordance with  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law
          and Code, it is

               ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the  same  hereby
          is, denied, and that the District Rent Administrator's order  be,
          and the same hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:









                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting Deputy Commissioner










          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI 410046 RO
                                                    

           

                                                            




    

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