CE430004RO; et al.                         
                                  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
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:  CE430004RO;  
CE410011RT;   CE410036RT
          WINDSOR PLACE CORP.; EDWARD COFFINA
                          AND      
                   CYNTHIA FELLOWES,              RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONERS     BH420181OR
          ----------------------------------x



          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING OWNER'S PETITION AND GRANTING TENANTS'
           PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TO THE EXTENT OF REMANDING
                            PROCEEDINGS TO ADMINISTRATOR


          On May 2, 1988, May 18, 1988 and June 22, 1988, the above-named 
          petitioner-owner and tenants filed petitions for administrative 
          review (PAR) of an order issued on April 13, 1988, by the Rent 
          Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations known as 401 
          East 88th Street, New York, New York, various apartments, wherein 
          the Administrator determined that the owner should be granted 
          restoration of the rent effective December 1, 1987, based on a 
          finding that master-television antenna and storage space services 
          had been restored.

          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 by the administrative appeals.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced 
          the rent of the subject apartments effective December 1, 1987.

          The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an Application for 
          Rent Restoration on September 24, 1987, stating that services for 
          which a rent reduction order had been issued by the Administrator 
          on September 9, 1986, under Docket No. LS000267B had been restored.

          The application was served on the tenants on November 5, 1987.

          The Commissioner has consolidated these three petitions as they 
          contain common questions of law and fact.












          CE430004RO; et al.                         



          The tenants filed answers to the application alleging that 
          restoration of rent should be denied because the owner failed to 
          restore all services and that the master-television antenna is 
          exclusively being used for cable television and not standard 
          television reception.

          On appeal, under Docket CE430004RO, the petitioner-owner asserted, 
          in pertinent part, that the Rent Administrator's order of April 13, 
          1988, should be modified to reflect an effective rent restoration 
          date of January 1, 1985, instead of December 1, 1987, because the 
          rent reduction was effective January 1, 1985 and there never was 
          any reduction in services.

          On appeal, under Docket Nos. CE410011RT and CE410036RT, the tenants 
          of apartments 2-B and 2-E alleged that the owner failed to comply 
          with the Rent Administrator's restoration of service directives 
          because the master-television antenna, although installed, was 
          exclusively wired for cable transmission and not normal broadcast 
          transmission.

          The owner's petition was served on the tenants on June 1, 1988, and 
          on June 17, 1988, the tenants filed an answer to the petition 
          stating that there is no legal basis to amend the effective date
          of the rent restoration order dated April 13, 1988, because the 
          master-television antenna is not operational.

          The tenants' petitions were respectively served on the owner on 
          June 6, 1988 and June 7, 1988.

          After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition should be 
          denied and the tenants' petition should be granted to the extent of 
          remanding the proceedings to the Rent Administrator for further 
          processing.

          The owner, on proof of restoration of those services which were the 
          subject of the Rent Administrator's rent reduction order is, by 
          law, entitled to apply for an order of rent restoration.  The 
          restoration is effective the first of the month following service 
          of the application on the tenants.  The restoration was correctly 
          made effective December 1, 1987, the first of the month following 
          service of the application on the tenants.  The owner's argument 
          for an earlier effective date is an attack on the validity of the 
          rent reduction which could only have been raised in a timely 
          petition for review of that order.











          CE430004RO; et al.                         

          The record at bar, however, is inconclusive as to whether the owner 
          was maintaining the building's master antenna to serve non-cable 
          television users.

          The appealed order, which was based on the findings of an inspec- 
          tion held on January 26,1988, merely determined that the building 
          has a master-television antenna.

          This, however, did not decide the issue of whether the existing 
          master-antenna was properly wired to service non-cable television 
          users in the building.  All that was determined by the DHCR  
          inspector was that cables were observed running from the roof to 
          various apartments, but it was not specified whether these cables 
          were for the use of cable or standard broadcast television users.

          The Commissioner notes that the tenants, on appeal, submitted a 
          statement from the German Hi Fi Center, Inc., dated May 11, 1988, 
          stating, that after inspection, it was determined that there was a 
          problem with the master-antenna affecting apartments 2-B, 2-D, 2-E 
          and 9-B.

          Given the patent ambiguity as to whether the owner was maintaining 
          master television antenna services, the Commissioner finds that the 
          proceedings should be remanded to the Rent Administrator for the 
          purpose of determining whether the master-antenna system is func- 
          tioning properly to serve the petitioner-tenants.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabiliza- 
          tion Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied and the tenants' petitions be, and the same hereby are, 
          granted to the extent of remanding these proceedings to the Rent 
          Administrator for further consideration in accordance with this 
          Order and Opinion.  The Administrator's order remains in full force 
          and effect pending the issuance of a new order pursuant to the 
          remand.


          ISSUED:



                                                                           
                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                Deputy Commissioner          
                           
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     












          CE430004RO; et al.                         

                                     
                                     
                                     
    

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