Adm. Review Docket Number: CK 810215 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.: CK 810215 RO
:
MIDLAND RESIDENTIAL, INC. DRO DOCKET NO.:
BC 810017-S
PETITIONER-LANDLORD : TENANT: SYDNEY J. CROAN
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On November 15, 1988, the above-named petitioner-landlord filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
October 20, 1988 by the Rent Administrator at 55 Church Street,
White Plains, New York concerning the housing accommodations known
as apartment 4-E at 10 Old Mamaroneck Road, White Plains, New York,
wherein the Administrator found a decrease in services, namely, the
discontinuance of the providing of a daytime doorman, and reduced
the rent.
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 in the administrative appeal.
The issues in this proceeding are whether the Administrator's
finding that there had been a decrease in services upon which a
rent reduction should be based conformed to the facts as reflected
in the record below and whether, based on that record, the effective
date of the rent reduction should have been the date specified in
the appealed order, May 1,1987.
This proceeding was commenced on May 24, 1987 when the tenant filed
a complaint of a decrease in services, alleging the decrease noted
hereinabove. The tenant requested a reduction in rent.
The record indicates that on April 1,1987, a copy of the complaint
was sent to the tenant's then landlord, C.W. Associates (C.W.),
which was the sponsor of the plan under which the subject building
had undergone a conversion to a cooperatively owned building; C.W.
having retained the cooperative corporation shares allocated to the
subject apartment___ the tenant herein not having elected to
purchase said shares.
In its answer to the complaint, C.W. asserted, in substance, that
the complaint could not be interposed against it because it was
merely the holder of unsold shares; and as such it could not compel
the cooperative corporation's board of directors to restore the
subject services.
Thereafter, on August 9,1988, a copy of the complaint was served on
the petitioner, C.W.'s successor in interest to the shares allocated
to the subject apartment. Petitioner answered the complaint in much
the same fashion that C.W. had, but added the allegation, in a
Adm. Review Docket Number: CK 810215 RO
subsequent statement, dated August 26,1988, that the subject
services had been restored.
In his September 7,1988 response to that statement, the tenant
denied that the said services had been restored.
In the appealed order, the Administrator ruled as noted above,
reducing the rent to the level in effect prior to the last rent
guideline increase, effective May 1,1987: the first rent payment
date following the date of service of the complaint on C.W.
In the Petition, the landlord, in substance, reiterates its
contentions that it should not have been held responsible for a
decrease in services over which it had no control and, further,
that the rent reduction was issued in error because the services in
question had been restored. Moreover, the landlord argues that the
effective date of the appealed order should not have been May 1,1987
because it had not been served with the complaint until August of
1988.
In his answer opposing the Petition, the tenant asks that the
Administrator's order be affirmed.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
denied.
Pursuant to Section 2503.4 of the Tenant Protection Regulations
(TPR), a tenant may apply for a reduction of the legal regulated
rent and the DHCR shall so reduce the rent for the period for which
it is found that the owner has failed to maintain required
services.
The Commissioner notes that it has long been the policy of the DHCR
to hold an individual shareholder of cooperative corporation shares
subject to rent reduction when a decrease in building-wide services
is suffered by such shareholder's sublessee. Indeed, it was so held
in the order and opinion issued under Administrative Review Docket
Number BD 810089 RO, wherein C.W.'s appeal of an order based on the
same facts as those herein, in a proceeding brought on by the
complaint of several other tenants of the subject building, was
denied. The Commissioner further finds that after, in effect,
admitting the decrease in services, the Petitioner offered no
substantiation of their restoration (either below or on appeal)
prior to the issuance of the appealed order. As to the effective
date of the appealed order, the Commissioner finds that the
complaint was properly served on the then landlord, C.W., on April
6, 1987 and, therefore, the effective date of the subject rent
reduction was properly determined in the appealed order to be May
1,1987.
The Commissioner notes that this order and opinion is issued without
prejudice to the owner's applying for a rent restoration order if
and when the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable statutes and
regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
Adm. Review Docket Number: CK 810215 RO
the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed, and
it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that the owner shall immediately refund all excess
rent arising as a result of this order, or the tenant may credit
such excess rent up to the total amount of each succeeding rent
payment until the excess has been recovered in full.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
