Docket No. BI830047RO
                                    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.: BI830047RO

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
          Richard Sperandio                       NO.: WE86515UC
           
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW



              The above-named owner filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 157 Montgomery Street, Various Apartments, 
          Eastchester, New York.

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

              The issue on appeal is whether the Administrator's order was 
          correct.  

              The owner commenced this proceeding by filing with the 
          Administrator an Application requesting a determination that the 
          subject premises was exempt from the Emergency Tenant Protection 
          Act (ETPA).  The owner based his request on the alleged conversion 
          of one of the six apartments into an office by the previous owner.  
          The owner argued that, since there were now less than six 
          apartments in the subject building, it was no longer subject to the 
          jurisdiction of ETPA.  The owner submitted documentation in support 
          of his allegation, including various documents from the town of 
          Eastchester which certified to the conversion and that the subject 
          premises now contained only five apartments.

              Despite the extensive documentation submitted by the owner, the 
          Administrator found that the subject premises was not exempt from 
          ETPA.  The Administrator based this finding on a DHCR inspection 
          which revealed that the apartment which had allegedly been 
          converted into an office contained beds and a refrigerator.  The 
          apartment additionally contained a kitchenette, in which was found 












          Docket No. BI830047RO

          a hot plate.  The inspector noted that the owner "attended the 
          inspection..".

              On appeal, the owner states that the building consists of five 
          dwelling units and one "office space rental unit".

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

              As noted previously in this order, the owner submitted 
          extensive documentation in support of his claim that, as the 
          subject building only contains five apartments it should be exempt 
          from ETPA.  This documentation includes a Building Permit, Plumbing 
          Permit, Certificate of Occupancy, et al issued by the town of 
          Eastchester, all attesting to the conversion of the apartment in 
          the subject building and to the fact that the subject building 
          contains five apartments.  The Administrator however, based its 
          finding on the DHCR Inspection Report, which stated that the 
          allegedly "converted" office contained features that rendered it 
          usable as an apartment.

              The Commissioner notes that various documents submitted by the 
          owner are dated 1975.  In that year the subject premises were 
          inspected by the Town of Eastchester, said inspection disclosing 
          that the apartment had been converted to an office.  The 
          Commissioner further notes that "the D.H.C.R. inspection took place 
          during 1987.  Thus, any ensuing "re-conversion" of the office back 
          to an apartment may have taken place during the intervening 12 
          years.

               The Commissioner additionally notes that the owner witnessed 
          the D.H.C.R. inspection, and that the results of that inspection 
          are explicitly named by the Administrator in its order, which was 
          served upon the owner.  The owner in his appeal did not in any way 
          attack the finding of the inspection report, and it is the actual 
          usage of the subject premises, as revealed by the inspection that 
          must control.

              THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Tenant 
          Protection 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, affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                            
                                             Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                             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