STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
------------------------------------X S.J.R. 6681
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO. CK 410097-RT
: DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
Juan Adames, DOCKET NO. 43840
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On November 14, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant refiled a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
September 19, 1988, by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing
accommodations known as 284 Mulberry Street, New York, New York,
Apartment No. 10, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the
subject apartment was exempt from the Rent Stabilization Law.
Subsequent thereto, the owner filed a mandamus proceeding in the Supreme
Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules
requesting that the tenant's petition be expeditiously determined.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issue
raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was originally commenced by the filing on September 7,
1984 of the tenant's objection to the initial rent/services registration
wherein the tenant appealed the fair market rent. The tenant also
stated that he did not receive a copy of the initial registration form
In answer to the complaint, the owner stated in substance that from the
time the owner took title to the subject building in March, 1984, the
tenant has been in occupancy of the subject apartment without paying
rent, in consideration for which the complainant performed as
superintendent of the building. This arrangement, continued the owner,
was finalized in an "Employment Agreement" dated March 14, 1984, which
the owner included with its answer.
The tenant responded that as legal tenant for the subject apartment he
was requesting that a legal rent be determined by the DHCR. The tenant
enclosed rent receipts for $125.00 per month for the period extending
from March, 1975 through November, 1983.
In Order Number 43840, the Rent Administrator terminated the proceeding,
basing this action on the finding that the subject apartment was exempt
from the Rent Stabilization Law because it was occupied by the
superintendent of the building.
In its petition the tenant argues that the apartment is not exempt
because the complainant had originally occupied apartment #4, and not
the subject apartment; thus the subject apartment was not part of his
"compensation" for being the superintendent of the building. The tenant
also contends that, until the March 14, 1984 agreement with the new
owner, he had always paid rent of $125.00 per month.
The owner responds that the subject apartment was properly considered
exempt from the Rent Stabilization Law because, pursuant to the owner's
Employment Agreement with the tenant, it has been "utilized by the
superintendent in connection with the operation of the subject building
since the current owner acquired title." Specifically, Section
2520.11(m) of the current Rent Stabilization Code exempts housing
accommodations which are occupied by superintendents and other employees
"to whom the space is provided as part or all of their compensation
without payment of rent and who are employed for the purpose of
rendering services in connection with the premises of which the housing
accommodation is a part." Since this has been the owner's arrangement
with the complainant throughout its entire period of ownership, the
owner asserts that the apartment is clearly exempt. Furthermore, the
owner continues, service of the RR-1 on the tenant was unnecessary for
the same reason. The owner also contends that any compensation
arrangement pertaining to the use or occupancy of apartment #4 was
discontinued as soon as the owner acquired title to the building, and is
thus without relevance to the proceeding. Finally, the owner points out
that the complainant also receives compensation of $125.00 per month in
addition to the use of apartment #10.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
As the owner correctly states in its answer to the petition, Section
2520.11(m) of the current Rent Stabilization Code provides for the
exemption of housing accommodations that are provided to employees
without payment of rent as part or all of their compensation for
services. Since this has been the complainant's arrangement with the
owner since March 14, 1984, or immediately prior to the effective date
of the initial registration on April 1, 1984, the Administrator
correctly terminated the proceeding. The owner was also not required to
serve the tenant with an RR-1, since the exemption also applies to
service of registration forms on the tenant at least for as long as the
conditions permitting the exemption are maintained. Finally, although
the tenant contends that his payment of rent prior to the employment
agreement with the current owner removes the exemption for that period,
the fact remains that the tenant never filed a complaint of overcharge
prior to April 1, 1984 and therefore the rental history prior to April
1, 1984 cannot be considered.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this tenant's petition be, and the same hereby is, denied;
and that the Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA