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 
          APPEAL OF                               ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                                  DOCKET NO.EF410021RT
               Holly     Bower,                           DISTRICT     RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S    DOCKET
                                                  NO. AG410386 SH


                                   PETITIONER
          --------------------------------------x
           
          ORDER AND OPINION  DENYING  PETITION  FOR  ADMINISTRATIVE  REVIEW

          On June 11, 1990, the above-name  tenant  filed  a  petition  for
          administrative review of an order issued on June  1,  1990  by  a
          District Rent Administrator concerning the housing  accommodation
          known as Apartment 429, 222 West 23rd Street, New York, New  York
          wherein the Administrator determined that the  subject  apartment
          was subject to rent regulation but that no overcharge occurred.

          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 petition for review.

          On  July  21,  1986,  the  tenant  filed  a  complaint  of   rent
          overcharges.  The tenant stated therein that she  took  occupancy
          of the subject apartment on February 1, 1985 pursuant  o  a  two-
          year lease at a monthly rental of  $1,375.00.   Accordingly,  she
          was a permanent tenant of the subject premises, which is a hotel.

          The Administrator served the owner with a copy  of  the  tenant's
          complaint and requested a complete rental history from  April  1,
          1980.

          The owner interposed an answer to the  tenant's  complaint.   The
          owner alleged that the  subject  apartment  was  not  within  the
          jurisdiction of the Rent Stabilization Law because it was a hotel 
          apartment which was always occupied  by  transients.   The  owner
          included several sample registration cards and a letter from  the
          Metropolitan  Hotel  Industry  Stabilization   Association   Inc.
          (METHISA) to document this claim.


          Docket No. EF410021RT         - 2 -

          In a subsequent communication from the owner, it was alleged that 
          the subject apartment was exempt from rent regulation based on  a
          second ground as well.  Namely, it was alleged that  the  subject
          apartment was a luxury hotel accommodation which rented for  more






          than $350.00 per month or $88.00 per week on May 1, 1968.

          On September 21, 1987,  the  Administrator  sent  notice  to  the
          owner requesting documents to substantiate  the  claim  that  the
          rents charged and paid on May 31, 1968 exceeded $350.00 per month 
          or $88.00 per week.

          No response to this final inquiry was received from the owner.

          In the order here under review, the Administrator found that  the
          subject apartment was subject  to  rent  regulation  because  the
          tenant took occupancy as a permanent  tenant.   However,  it  was
          also  determined  that   no   overcharge   had   occurred.    The
          Administrator  found   that   there   was   sufficient   credible
          documentation to show that the most recent occupant prior to  the
          complainant-tenant paid $70.00 per day.   Therefore,  the  lawful
          stabilization  rent  was  established  at  $1,375.00  per  month.
          Finally, the Administrator  ordered  the  monthly  rental  to  be
          frozen at the stated amount until the owner  properly  registered
          that subject apartment with the Division of Housing and Community 
          Renewal (DHCR).

          In her petition for administrative review,  the  tenant  requests
          reversal of that  portion  of  the  Administrator's  order  which
          determined that no overcharge occurred.   Contemporaneously,  the
          tenant filed a request for reconsideration of the Administrator's 
          order.  The substance of the tenant's request for reconsideration 
          was incorporated as the substance of  her  petition  for  review.
          The tenant alleges the owner was required to provide  a  complete
          rental  history  from  April  1,  1980  as   requested   by   the
          Administrator because the owner did  not  register  the  unit  as
          required  on  April  1,  1984.   The  tenant  states   that   the
          Administrator erred in only considering the prior rental and  not
          the complete rental history form April  1,  1980.   Further,  the
          tenant disputes  the  Administrator's  finding  that  the  record
          contained sufficient  "credible  documentation"  to  support  the
          determination that no overcharge occurred.

          The owner interposed no answer to the petition  for  review,  nor
          did the owner file an  independent  petition  for  administrative
          review.   Subsequently,   the   owner   filed   a   request   for
          reconsideration.   This application requested reconsideration  of
          only that portion of the Administrator's order  which  found  the
          subject apartment to be rent regulated and ordered the  owner  to
          register the subject apartment.

          Both the tenant's and the owner's  requests  for  reconsideration
          were denied by the Administrator.
          Docket NO. EF410021RT         - 3 -

          Further supplemental documents submitted by the tenant included a 
          deposition of a prior tenant who was allegedly a permanent tenant 
          of the subject apartment from 1979 through the summer of 1980.

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

          The issue in this case is what period of time  the  Administrator
          should have examined, in reaching her determination.  In  a  case
          where an apartment was not registered, Section 2526.1  (a)(3)(ii)






          states that 

               "...the   legal   regulated   rent   for   purposes   of
               determining an overcharge shall  be  deemed  to  be  the
               rent charged and  paid  on  April  1,  1980,  or  for  a
               housing accommodation not required to be  registered  by
               June 30, 1984, 4 years prior to  the  date  the  housing
               accommodation was first required to be registered..."

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner  in  this  case
          was not required to register the subject apartment  by  June  30,
          1984  as  it  was  then  not  occupied  by  a  permanent  tenant.
          Accordingly,  the  Administrator's  inquiry  should   have   been
          limited  to  "...4  years  prior  to   the   date   the   housing
          accommodation was first required to be  registered..."   In  this
          case, the date the petitioner-tenant took occupancy, February  1,
          1985, was the date that the subject apartment was first  required
          to be registered.  Accordingly, the Administrator's inquiry  into
          a rental history should have begun with February 1981.   

          The Commissioner bases this opinion on  Section  2520.11  of  the
          Rent  Stabilization  Code.   This  section   enumerates   housing
          accommodations which are exempt form rent regulation  "...for  so
          long as they maintain the status indicated..."  Subsection (g)(1) 
          states that accommodations in a hotel are exempt  when  they  are
          used for transient occupancy.  Therefore, when an apartment in  a
          hotel is used for transient occupancy it is exempt and when it is 
          occupied by a permanent tenant it is rent regulated.

          The tenant neither presents evidence nor does she allege that the 
          subject apartment was occupied by a permanent  resident  for  the
          period of February 1981 through February 1, 1985.  On  the  other
          hand, the owner makes an undisputed assertion that for  the  time
          period  in  question  the  subject  apartment  was  occupied   by
          transients.   This  assertion  is  corroborated  by  the  owner's
          submission of several registration  cards  and  the  letter  from
          METHISA.  Accordingly, the Administrator  correctly  weighed  the
          evidence presented in reaching her determination.

          In accordance with the above, the Commissioner is of the  opinion
          that the Administrator correctly applied Section 2521.1 (b)(2) in 
          computing the lawful stabilization rent.  As noted by the
          Docket No EF410021RT          - 4- 

          Administrator, the rent charged by the owner  was  less  than  it
          could have charged and the lawful stabilization rent of $1,375.00 
          was correctly established. 

          Finally, the Commissioner will not  consider  the  owner's  claim
          that the subject apartment is not regulated because of the unit's 
          luxury status.  The owner failed to supply documentation of  that
          claim to the Administrator despite a request to do so, and failed 
          to file a petition for review. The Commissiioner also notes  that
          the owner failed to answer the tenant's petition for review.

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

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






          is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:   


                                             Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                             Deputy Commissioner


































          Docket No. EF410021RT


          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DOCKET NUMBER: EF 410021 RT

          PROCESSING ATTORNEY: Jerry Gruen 

          Copies of orders to be mailed to:

          Landlord and/or Attorney           Tenant and/or Attorney

          Chelsea 23rd St. Corp.             Ms. Holly Bower
          222 West 23rd Street               222 West 23rd Street
          New York, N.Y. 10011               Apartment 429
          Attn: Stanley Bard                 New York, NY 10011

          Chelsea 23rd Street Corp.          Ms. Holly Bower
          c/o Finkelstein, Borah, Schwartz,  c/o Ms. Sondra Rutherford
          Altschuler Goldstein, P.C.         P.O. Box 411






          377 Broadway                       Cooper Station
          New York, NY 10013-3993            New York, NY 10276
          Attn: Paul Monte, Esq. 
    

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