DOC. NO.: ED 430121-RO et al.
                                   STATE OF NEW YORK
                              OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                       GERTZ PLAZA
                                 92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                 JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
         APPEALS OF                          :   DOCKET NOS.: ED 430121-RO;
                                                              ED 430192-RT;
                                                              ED 410195-RT;
                                                              ED 410054-RT

                           REVIEW AND GRANTING OWNER'S IN PART

         The above named petitioners, owner and tenants, filed timely Petitions for 
         Administrative Review against an order issued on March 23, 1990 by the 
         Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as 421 
         Hudson Street, Various Apartments, New York, New York.

         The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate the petitions for 
         disposition herein.

         In prior proceedings the Rent Administrator issued an order on December 
         30, 1985 granting the owner's applications and increasing rents building- 
         wide by $30.00 per month to reflect the institution of 24 hour  doorman 
         service effective upon the institution of the service (OI 8744; OI 10680; 
         CDR 6045).

         The tenants filed a petition alleging, among other things, that most of 
         them had not consented to rent increases for the service and an order and 
         opinion was issued on March 2, 1988 remitting the matter to the Rent 
         Administrator to investigate the validity of a poll of the tenants taken 
         by the owner in 1983 and reprocess the applications (ART 07497-L).

         The order of the Rent Administrator (CC 41013-RP) appealed herein, issued 
         after reprocessing pursuant to remand, revoked the prior order and rent 
         increases, directed the owner to recompute all guideline adjustments which 
         included said increase and refund overcharges, establishing an escrow 
         account in connection therewith, within 90 days.

         The order was based on the evidence of record including the findings and 
         recommendations of an Administrative Law Judge made after a hearing with 
         the parties.

         DOC. NO.: ED 430121-RO et al.

         It was specifically found that Section 2522.4(a)(2)(iv) of the Current 
         Code, which requires the express consent of 75% of the tenants, governs; 
         that, pursuant to a poll taken by the owner in 1983, there were 186 
         apartments (including 1 superintendent's apartment and 3 then vacant 
         apartments); that the tenants of 64 apartments agreed to the increased 
         service, 47 did not agree and 71 abstained or did not respond to the poll; 
         that the abstentions would not be counted as consents nor would the fact 
         that many tenants paid the rent increase without objection; and that even 
         under Sections 20C(3) & 35 of the former Code the owner could not prevail.

         In its petition the owner, urges among other things, that the matter 
         should have been decided pursuant to the former rather than the current 
         Code since the initial application was filed prior to April 1, 1984; that 
         the prior order demonstrates that the owner did satisfy the requirements 
         of the former Code; that the abstentions should be counted as consents 
         since they have enjoyed the service since 1983 and would otherwise be 
         given an unwarranted "windfall".

         The tenants in their petitions, individually and by their representatives, 
         urge among other things, that the Administrator should have also imposed 
         interest, treble damages and attorneys' fees because of the bad faith, 
         discrimination and misrepresentations of the owner.

         The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition should be 
         granted in part and the tenants' petitions denied.

         The Commissioner is of the opinion that the Administrator and the 
         Administrative Law Judge were correct in applying the current Code since 
         the original increase order was issued after April 1, 1984 and it is also 
         the general rule that administrative determinations shall be in accord 
         with the law as of the time of determination.  They were also correct in 
         their assessment that the owner should not have prevailed under the former 
         Code since only 64 tenants out of 186 actually consented to the increase.  
         The Commissioner notes that the increase order had been based, among other 
         things, on the belief that 141 tenants had consented (the owner had 
         apparently counted the abstentions and new tenants as consents).

         However, the Commissioner notes that the tenants have, in fact been 
         receiving the benefits of doorman service since 1983; that the provisions 
         of the former Code were not as specific as those of the current Code and 
         the owner's expectation of approval of the increases, though erroneous, 
         was not unreasonable; that the service, in light of present urban 
         realities, is not frivolous although some tenants obviously think it is 
         unnecessary; and that the charge, in view of pay-payroll data submitted 
         and modern economic realities, is not unreasonable ($30.00 x 12 months x 
         185 apartments divided 4 (3 shifts and a relief) = $16,650.00 per doorman 
         per year).

         Moreover, Section 2522.4(a)(1) of the current code permits an owner to 
         collect a rent increase for increased services upon tenant consent, and in 

         DOC. NO.: ED 430121-RO et al.

         the case of vacant housing accommodations, tenant consent is implied.  
         Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the owner is entitled to collect 
         the increase of $30.00 per month from all tenants who agreed to pay the 
         increase, effective upon the institution of the service, and from those 
         tenants who took occupancy after the service commenced, effective upon the 
         commencement of their vacancy lease.

         The rent reductions ordered by the Administrator should be retroactive 
         only as to those tenants who voted against the addition of doorman service 
         on the abovenoted poll or who joined in the prior petition.  For those 
         tenants who neither opposed nor consented to the service, the rent 
         reductions should be prospective as of the first rent payment date 
         occurring after the issuance of the Administrator's March 23, 1990 order.

         The Administrator's order directed the owner to deposit the refund money 
         due the tenants in an interest bearing escrow account and pay each tenant 
         entitled to a refund in a single lump sum with accrued interest within 15 
         days of the tenant's written request.  Any refunds and accrued interest 
         that remained unclaimed after one year were to be forfeited to the 
         Division as fines.  Although this portion of the Administrator's order was 
         automatically stayed by the filing of the petition, the owner did not 
         challenge that aspect of the order.  Accordingly, the directive to 
         establish an escrow account as specified by the Administrator is affirmed 
         and the owner is directed to pay within 30 days of the issuance of this 
         Commissioner's Order and Opinion any refunds due tenants in occupancy or 
         condominium owners up to the date of purchase those sums due them pursuant 
         to this order plus interest.  For tenants who have vacated, the owner is 
         directed to create an escrow account as ordered by the Administrator 
         within 90 days after the issuance of this Order and notify the Compliance 
         Unit of the Division as well as the tenants the name of the bank and the 
         account number of said account.

         The owner shall refund or deposit in said escrow account the retroactive 
         refund due to tenants who voted against the addition of doorman service or 
         who joined in the prior petition as well as the refunds due prospectively 
         from the date of Administrator's order to those tenants who did not either 
         oppose or consent to the increase.

         Within 90 days of the issuance of this order, the owner shall recompute 
         the rents for all tenants who are not required to pay the increase for 
         doorman service so as to eliminate that portion of all guideline increases 
         attributable to the revoked rent increases, reduce the rents and refund or 
         deposit in the aforementioned escrow account all excess rent collected as 
         a result of this order.

         All sums deposited in the escrow account shall be refunded to the tenants 
         with accrued interest within 15 days of the tenant's claim or forfeited to 
         the Division if unclaimed after one year after establishment of the 
         account.  Within 30 days after expiration of the one year, the owner shall 

         DOC. NO.: ED 430121-RO et al.

         cause an accounting to be made to the Division of all deposits to and 
         disbursements from the account which shall then be closed with the 
         remaining balance transferred to the Division.

         Attached is a schedule of tenants entitled to retroactive refunds because 
         they voted against the increase in service or joined in the prior 
         The owner may eliminate 24 hour doorman service building-wide or apply for 
         rent increases for all tenants with the express consent of at least 75% of 
         the tenants in occupancy of regulated apartments.

         The Commissioner notes that if the owner retains doorman service (with or 
         without rent increases) it may not discriminate against regulated tenants 
         with respect thereto.

         With respect to the tenants' petitions, since this is in essence a service 
         rather than an overcharge proceeding and in view of the other 
         considerations abovenoted, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the 
         imposition of treble damages and attorneys' fees is not warranted.

         THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

         ORDERED, that petitions ED 430192-RT, ED 410195-RT & ED 410054-RT be, and 
         the same hereby are, denied; that petition ED 430121-RO be, and the same 
         hereby is, granted in part; and that the order of the Rent Administrator 
         be, and the same hereby is, modified as above set forth.


                                                 ELLIOT SANDER
                                                 Deputy Commissioner


         DOC. NO.: ED 430121-RO et al.


                   APT                      TENANT(S)

                   M2                       Hughes
                   M3                       Arneberg/Ferullo
                   M4                       Michaels
                   M5                       Stewart
                   M6                       Hicks/Smith
                   M7                       Wilkinson
                   M8                       Leblanc/Fratarcangelico
                   M9                       Soller/Singer/Horn
                   M10                      Soller/Singer/Horn
                   M11                      Abbracciamento
                   202                      Walden
                   203                      Swartz
                   204                      Jensen/Leuthner
                   206                      Cowley
                   208                      Hernandez
                   209                      Oe
                   210                      Winship/Campi
                   213                      Mosley
                   214                      Bloom/Gunderson
                   215                      Dodson
                   217                      Pearlman
                   218                      Sulverberg
                   219                      Augenstein
                   222                      Pardes
                   224                      Pollard
                   305                      Wayne/Stevens
                   306                      Menas
                   309                      Consulate General of Italy
                   313                      Perr
                   324                      Reilly
                   402                      Dahut
                   403                      Lane
                   404                      Macquarrie
                   405                      Stout
                   406                      Vaughn
                   407                      Garrett
                   410                      Roberts
                   411                      Walker
                   412                      Tavani
                   413                      Jones
                   415                      Shebell/Ashenfelter
                   416                      Carballude
                   417                      Britsch/Skilling
                   418                      Tuttleman
                   421                      Widman

         DOC. NO.: ED 430121-RO et al.

                   422                      Mattoli
                   423                      Hall
                   425                      Beuchera/George
                   501                      Vitiello
                   502                      Didier/Busnot
                   504                      Lanese
                   507                      Bloncourt
                   513                      Gechtoff
                   515                      Lipson
                   516                      Schneider
                   519                      Goldman/Bradley
                   521                      Pigzit/Rudman
                   522                      Halkidis/DeLeo
                   523                      Levin
                   524                      Miller
                   525                      O'Grady
                   601                      Abdelmonem
                   602                      Kornhanser
                   603                      Gelstein
                   604                      Warshow
                   605                      Reese
                   606                      Farrel
                   608                      Aminoff/Faccini
                   610                      Clausen
                   611                      Kaplan
                   612                      Howe
                   613                      Peleaz
                   614                      Margolis
                   615                      Montgomery
                   617                      Fitzgerald
                   618                      Apat
                   620                      Celeste
                   622                      Spector
                   623                      Button
                   624                      Grinspan
                   625                      Ward
                   702                      Schmidt
                   704                      Patton/Alivera
                   706                      Mirojnick/Kushnit
                   708                      Bradsell
                   709                      Discount
                   712                      Delconte
                   714                      Goddard/Peate
                   715                      Fein
                   719                      Voels
                   720                      Wager

                   721                      Furman

         DOC. NO.: ED 430121-RO et al.

                   722                      Levenson
                   723                      Lipson
                   724                      Richter
                   725                      Timmerman
                   802                      Triscuzzi
                   803                      MacNevelle
                   804                      Jones
                   810                      Johannas
                   811                      Pagar
                   818                      "KL"
                   823                      Kane


                                  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                   COVERING MEMORANDUM

         ARB Docket Nos.:              ED 430121-RO;  ED 430192-RT;
                                       ED 410195-RT;  ED 410054-RT
         DRO Docket No/Order No.: CC 410135-RP
         Tenant (s):                   George Triscuizzi, Lora Wilkinson,
                                       Marcella Merone, Sandra Busnot et al.
         Owner:                        Mountbatten Equities
         Code Section:            9 NYCRR 2522.6 & 2522.4
         Premises:                421 Hudson St., Various Apts.,
                                       Lower Manhattan

         Order and Opinion Denying Tenants' PARS and Granting Owner's PAR
         in Part

         Rent Administrator, based on findings of Administrative Law Judge, revoked 
         prior rent increases of $30.00 per apartment for 24 hour doorman service 
         and directed recomputation of all guideline adjustments and refund of 
         overcharges with establishment of escrow account.

         Administrator was correct in applying current code and finding that even 
         under former Code owner could not prevail since only 64 out of 186 tenants 

         However, rent reductions should be retroactive only as to tenants who 
         voted against increase in a 1983 poll or joined in prior PAR and 
         prospective as to all other tenants.  Tenants have been enjoying service 
         since 1983; owner's expectations under former Code were not unreasonable, 
         through erroneous; and charge not unreasonable.

         Interest, treble damages and attorneys' fees not warranted. 

         Owner may reapply with express consent of 75% of regulated tenants.


         Processing Attorney:                                                     
         Supervising Atty.:                                                      

         Deputy Counsel:                                                         

         Deputy Commissioner:                                                    

         Mailed copies of Order and Determination to:
                            Tenant's Atty         
                            Owner's Atty          
                            Date:                : by                  

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