DD 610219 RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK   11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: DD 610219 RO

                    RIVERDALE ESTATES,
                                                   DRO DOCKET NO.: AK 610335 R
                                                   TENANT:  STANLEY LANGER



           On April 12, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
           Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on March 
           14, 1989 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, 
           Jamaica, New York concerning the housing accommodations known as 
           3240 Henry Hudson Parkway, Apartment 5E, Bronx, New York wherein 
           the Rent Administrator determined that the tenant's rented garage 
           space is subject to the Rent Stabilization Law.

           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 appeal.

           On November 17, 1986, the tenant commenced this proceeding by 
           filing a complaint of rent overcharge, alleging that although 
           garage use was part of the services provided by the owner and thus 
           subject to the jurisdiction of the Division of Housing and 
           Community Renewal (DHCR), the owner denied that garage rates were 
           subject to the Rent Stabilization Law and had increased the garage 
           rent in contravention of regulations.

           A copy of the complaint was served on the owner.

           In response to the complaint, the owner asserted, that the 
           complaint should be dismissed primarily because: 

          DD 610219 RO

                (1)  the garage has been and continues to be 
                     operated by independent operators,

                (2)  the owner has never included, in registration 
                     statement, the garage as an additional service 
                     for tenants, and

                (3)  the owner of the subject building and the 
                     owner of the garage are independent economic 
                     entities and as such, the rates charged by the 
                     owner of the garage are not subject to review 
                     by the DHCR.

           In reply, the tenant asserted that subsequent to 1948, although 
           they remained separate in form, the subject building and the garage 
           had in fact become one entity and that all of his transactions 
           relating to the garage from the inception of his tenancy had been 
           managed by the landlord of the building.  The tenant included 
           copies of various letters signed by the managing agent in support 
           of his assertions.

           Thereupon, the owner submitted a history of the subject building, 
           tracing its ownership from 1977 through the present as proof that 
           the owner of the building and the owner of the garage are separate 
           and distinct entities.  Moreover, the owner asserted, the issue had 
           been raised in several prior proceedings by various other tenants 
           and the DHCR has ruled that it had no jurisdiction.

           In the order here under review, the Administrator determined that 
           the garage space is subject to the Rent Stabilization Law and 
           directed the owner to offer the tenant a renewal lease for the 
           garage space.

           In its appeal, the owner contends that the Administrator's order 
           should be reversed because the issue of the separation of interests 
           between the garage operator and the owner of the subject premises 
           has been conclusively determined in prior administrative decisions 
           which have consistently held that the operations of the garage was 
           an independent service.

           The tenant contends that the order should be upheld because the 
           evidence proved that there is or was common ownership between the 
           garage operator and the owner of the building and pursuant to 
           Section 2520.6(r) the garage space is subject to the Rent 
           Stabilization Law.

           After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
           that this petition should be denied.

           The owner herein has urged that prior administrative decisions 

          DD 610219 RO

           should be determinative of the tenant's rights in this proceeding 
           and has submitted various documents, including copies of 
           administrative determinations made in the proceedings which involve 
           the same issue i.e. ZAG 610606 and ZCJ 620086 R, a 1947 opinion  
           letter from Ralph Morhard, Chief Area Attorney N.Y.C. Defense 
           Rental Area, a 1958 opinion letter from Edward J. Mitchell, a Local 
           Rent Administrator, and a 1987 letter from the Agency's Enforcement 
           Bureau, all of which had determined, for the particular tenants 
           involved, that the garage was not subject to rent regulatory laws 
           based upon a finding that " . . . before and on March 1, 1943, 
           there was a contractual and economic separation of interests 
           between the landlord and the independent operator of the garage and 
           subsequent to March 1, 1943 this separation of operating interests 
           has continued."

           However, these opinions involve rent controlled tenants and are not 
           binding on the tenant herein who is rent stabilized.

           Regardless of the situation as it had been in 1943, the tenant 
           herein has alleged that the situation has changed and there no 
           longer exists an economic and contractual separation of interests 
           between the owner of the building and the garage operation.  
           Section 2520.6(r)(3) of the Rent Stabilization Code regarding 
           ancillary servies provides in pertinent part that where on the 
           applicable base date or at any time subsequent thereto, there is or 
           was a separate charge, and there is or was common ownership, 
           directly or indirectly between the operator of such service and the 
           owner, or the service was provided by the owner, any increase,
           . . . shall conform to the applicable rent guidelines rate.  The 
           tenant herein has demonstrated a unity of interest between the 
           building owner and the garage operator to warrant a finding that 
           the garage space is subject to rent stabilization.  Review of the 
           record shows that there is an indirect relationship between the 
           building owner and the company contracted to manage the garage.  
           The record indicates that both the building management and the 
           garage management share the same office space and that one 
           individual acts as agent for both.  Accordingly, the Commissioner 
           finds that the tenant's garage space is subject to rent 

           THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
           it is

           ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and 
           the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 

          DD 610219 RO


                                                   JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                   Acting Deputy Commissioner

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