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. DG 810348 RT
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO. YCL-8-3-      
                                                          0001-UC,
               JOAN C. SILKE                                    YCI-8-1-
                                                                0006/R
                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X                             
             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On July 18, 1989, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against orders issued on June 14, 
          1989, and June 16, 1989, by the Rent Administrator, White Plains, 
          New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 403 St. 
          Barnabas Place, Yonkers, New York, Apartment No. 3F, 
          wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the subject 
          premises is not subject to the Emergency Tenant Protection Act 
          (hereafter ETPA) because it contains less than six units and 
          terminated the tenant's overcharge proceeding on the basis of the 
          determination that the subject premises was not subject to the 
          ETPA. 

          The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the 
          provisions of Section 2500.9 of the Tenant Protection Regulations.

          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 tenant's 
          filing of a rent overcharge complaint on September 2, 1988.  On 
          November 18, 1988, the landlord filed an application to determine 
          whether the subject premises was exempt from the ETPA on the basis 
          that it contained fewer than six apartments.  In support of such 
          application, the landlord submitted a copy of a Certificate of 
          Occupancy for the subject premises disclosing that the subject 
          premises contained five apartments.

          In response to the landlord's application, the tenant stated 
          in substance that the subject premises and the neighboring 
          building - 401 St. Barnabas Place - should be considered one 
          building containing ten apartments and that the landlord was 
          granted a major capital improvement rent increase for the subject 
          premises under docket YBC8-2-0023/OM so that the subject premises 
          DG 810348 RT










          should be considered subject to the ETPA.

          On May 31, 1989, an inspection was conducted at the subject 
          premises.  Such inspection disclosed that the subject premises had 
          a separate entrance, a separate roof, a separate water main, a 
          separate sewer line and separate electric service.

          In Order Number YCL-8-3-0001-UC issued on June 14, 1989, the 
          Rent Administrator determined that the subject premises was exempt 
          from the ETPA and in Order Number YCI-8-1-0006/R issued on June 
          16, 1989, the Rent Administrator terminated the tenant's rent 
          overcharge complaint on the basis of the June 14, 1989 order 
          finding the subject premises exempt from the ETPA.

          In this petition, the tenant alleges in substance that the 
          subject premises cannot be exempt from the ETPA because it should 
          be considered part of the adjoining building and because the owner 
          applied for and received a major capital improvement rent 
          increase.

          In answer to the tenant's petition, the landlord stated in 
          substance that the Rent Administrator's order was warranted and 
          that the tenant had vacated the subject apartment.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should 
          be denied.

          Section 2500.9 (d) of the Tenant Protection Regulations 
          provides in pertinent part that buildings containing six or more 
          dwelling units are subject to the ETPA and that a building shall 
          be deemed to contain six or more dwelling units if it is part of a 
          multiple family garden-type maisonette dwelling complex containing 
          six or more dwelling units having common facilities such as a 
          sewer line, water main or heating plant and operated as a unit 
          under common ownership notwithstanding that certificates of 
          occupancy were issued for portions thereof as one or two family 
          dwellings.

          An examination of the record in this case including the 
          physical inspection discloses that the subject premises is not 
          part of a horizontal multiple dwelling in conjunction with the 
          adjoining building - 401 St. Barnabas Place - but must be 
          considered a separate building since it has its own separate 
          entrance, separate electrical service, separate sewer, separate 
          water main and separate roof.  Since the subject premises by 
          itself contains only five residential units, it is not subject to 
          the ETPA and the Rent Administrator's orders finding the subject 
          premises exempt from the ETPA and terminating the tenant's rent 
          overcharge complaint are warranted.

          However the Rent Administrator's order issued under docket 
          YBC8-2-0023/OM which granted the landlord a major capital 
          improvement rent increase for the subject premises must be revoked 
          since DHCR had no jurisdiction to grant any rent increase because 
          DG 810348 RT



          the subject premises are exempt from the ETPA.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Tenant 
          Protection Regulations and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 
          1974, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and 
          the same hereby is, denied, and, that the orders of the Rent 
          Administrator issued under docket numbers YCL-8-3-001-UC and YCI- 
          8-1-0006/R be, and the same hereby are, affirmed, and that the 
          Rent Administrator's order issued under docket YBC8-2-0023/OM be, 
          and the same hereby is, revoked.

          ISSUED



                                                                        
                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          Deputy Commissioner




                                                    
          ```````````````




































          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BUREAU
                                COVERING MEMORANDUM






















          ARB Docket No.: DG 810348 RT







          DRO Docket No/Order No.: YCL-8-3-001-UC, YCI-8-1-0006/R







          Tenant(s): Joan C. Silke







          Owner: Sylvia Kroener







          Code Section: 2500.9 of Tenant Protection Regulations







          Premises: 403 St. Barnabas Place, Yonkers, New York, Apt. 3F







          Order and Opinion Denying Petition                                 
                           






          Petition denied on basis evidence of record discloses subject 
          premises contains fewer than six housing units so Rent 






          Administrator properly determined that subject premises is exempt 
          from the ETPA.














































          APPROVED:















          Processing Attorney:                                             







          Supervising Attorney:                                            







          Director:                                                         
              






          Deputy Commissioner:                                             







          Mailed copies of Order and Determination to:
                           Tenant(s)                 






            Owner             
            Tenant's Atty             






            Owner's Atty              








            Date:              :  by               






            signature
            







                                                                             






    

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