Adm. Rev. Docket No.: BD810465RO
                                  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.: BD810465RO
                                                                           
               
            WESTCROFT REALTY CORP.    
                                
                                               DRO DOCKET NO.: 040149
                                             
                                               TENANT: RAYMOND & TERESA
                                PETITIONER                 URRUTIA
          ----------------------------------X




            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW




          The above-named petitioner-owner timely filed a Petition for 
          Administrative Review against an order issued on April 13, 1987, by 
          the Rent Administrator at 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York, 
          concerning housing accommodations known as apartment number 10 at 
          455-10 North Broadway, Yonkers, New York, wherein the Administrator 
          determined that the tenants had not been overcharged as to their 
          rent, but directed that the 1984 Registration Statement for this 
          apartment and the 1984 Registration Statement as to building-wide 
          services be amended to indicate that this apartment contains four 
          rooms (not five) and that the services provided include a master TV 
          antenna, a swimming pool and a playground.  



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



          The issue in this appeal is whether the petitioner has asserted a 
          basis upon which the appealed order may be reversed or modified.



          This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing of a 
          Tenant's Objection To Rent/Services Registration (the Objection). 
          In the Objection, the tenants asserted an overcharge complaint and 







          Adm. Rev. Docket No.: BD810465RO

          a challenge to the room count and description of services as set 
          forth in the 1984 Registration Statement. The tenants alleged, 
          among other things, that the apartment contained four rooms, not 
          five (as indicated in the Registration Statement) and that the 
          master TV antenna, pool and playground which are available to the 
          tenants had not been listed in the description of the services 
          provided.


          In answer, the petitioner submitted a complete rental history, but 
          did not answer as to the room count or services allegations in the 
          Objection.


          Whereupon, the appealed order, as described above, was issued.


          In the PAR, the petitioner asserts, in substance, that the 
          apartment contains five rooms and that parking, playgrounds and 
          master TV antenna are services provided by the landlord at no 
          additional charge, but that there is an additional charge for the 
          pool.


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



          The Commissioner finds that the only point in the appealed order 
          with which the PAR actually takes issue is as to the room count.


          If the base date service as to the pool involved an additional 
          charge, that is the nature of the service. There is nothing in the 
          Objection, or otherwise in the record, to suggest that that is not 
          the nature of the service1. The petitioner therefore raises no 
          issue by pointing out that there is an additional charge for the 
          pool; no more than if it had alleged that tenants have to put coins 
          in the machines in a laundry room provided by the landlord.


          As to the room count, the Commissioner finds that the landlord's 
          separate, written description of the dimensions of each room in the 
          apartment and accompanying diagram are submitted for the first time 
          on appeal without any explanation as to why they were not submitted 
          below. The Commissioner therefore finds that said documents are 
          beyond the scope of review on this appeal. Moreover, the 
          Commissioner finds that the accompanying diagram substantiates the 

          1 Please note, no determination is being made herein as to the 
          exact nature of the pool service. If there is any question relating 
          to that service (such as the exact nature of that service and 
          whether there has been a decrease in the same), it is not within 
          the scope of this proceeding to resolve that question. The only 
          issue being resolved herein is whether or not some sort of service 
          involving a swimming pool is available to the tenants and, 
          therefore, whether some indication that such a service is provided 
          must be set forth in the appropriate Registration Statement.



          Adm. Rev. Docket No.: BD810465RO

          Administrator's determination as it shows that there is absolutely 
          no wall or other device creating (or even suggesting) a separation  
          between the area designated "Living Room" and the area designated 
          "Dining Room" in the diagram. Therefore, the Commissioner finds 
          that were these proofs not beyond the scope of review on appeal, 
          they would prove that the landlord has erroneously counted one room 
          as two. Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the petitioner has 
          failed to assert any basis upon which the appealed order may be 
          reversed or modified.


          THEREFORE, pursuant to all of the applicable statutes and 
          regulations, it is


          ORDERED, that this Petition be, and the same hereby is denied; and 
          that the Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed.


          ISSUED:




                                                                  
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Deputy Commissioner





          1A2D3D4BD810465.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