CK 410097-RT

                                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  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
                                             
                                                     

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


           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 
      warranted.

      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 
      (RR-1).




      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 












          CK 410097-RT

      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 






          CK 410097-RT

      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.


      ISSUED:



                                                                    
                                      JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      Deputy Commissioner




                 



































          CK 410097-RT








    

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