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.
|
