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. EG 220143-RO
                                         :  
                                            DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
       JOSEPH GAUDINO                       DOCKET NO. CK 220550-R
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             


           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


     On  July  5,  1990,  the  above-named  landlord  filed  a   petition   for
     administrative review of an order issued on May 31,  1990  by  a  District
     Rent Administrator concerning the   housing  accommodation  known  as  547
     Clinton Street, Brooklyn, New York, Basement Apartment.

     The Commissioner has reviewed all the  evidence  in  the  record  and  has
     carefully considered that portion of the record  relevant  to  the  issues
     raised by the petition for review.

     In November of 1988 the tenant  filed  a  complaint  of  rent  overcharge,
     asserting that she moved into a  parlor-floor  apartment  at  the  subject
     building in 1965 at a rent of $65.00 per month; that in 1983 she moved  to
     the basement apartment with the landlord's assurance of no change  in  her
     status, and that her rent has incrementally gone up to $325.00  per  month
     without the issuance of rent agency orders.

     The landlord's answer acknowledged that the tenant had been living in  the
     parlor-floor  apartment  but  contended  that  the  tenant  accepted   the
     increases in rent.

     Shortly after receiving the tenant's overcharge  complaint,  the  landlord
     (with his co-owners) commenced a hold-over proceeding in the Housing  Part
     of the Civil Court in the County of Kings (Index No. L & T  62456/89),  in
     which he contended that the subject apartment  was  not  subject  to  rent
     control or rent stabilization.

     By decision and order dated August 16, 1989, the Court (Alex  J.  Colgan,,
     J.) awarded final judgment of possession to the tenant, finding  that  she
     "is entitled to the same  rent-controlled  protection  she  enjoyed  while
     living on  the  first  [parlor]  floor,  the  precise  legal  rent  to  be
     determined in a pending DHCR proceeding between the parties."

     Subsequently the landlords brought a motion  to  "reconsider,"  contending
     that the first-floor (or parlor-floor) apartment, from  which  the  tenant
     moved in 1983, was itself not rent-controlled.









          DOCKET NUMBER: EG 220143-RO
     By decision and order  dated  December  4,  1989,  the  Court  denied  the
     landlords' motion, adhering to its  earlier  decision,  which  had  found,
     among other things, that the first-floor (or parlor-floor) apartment  from
     which the tenant moved in 1983 was at that time subject to rent control.

     On May 31, 1990 the District Rent  Administrator  issued  the  order  here
     under review, finding pursuant to the decision and order of the court that 
     the subject apartment was subject to the  Rent  and  Eviction  Regulations
     (rent control) and determining that the maximum rent was $225.00 effective 
     July 1, 1983.  The order also pointed out that the  landlord  could  apply
     for entry into the Maximum Base Rent ("MBR") system,  under  which  annual
     seven and one-half percent  rent  increases  are  allowed  for  qualifying
     landlords.

     In his petition  for  administrative  review  the  landlord  contends,  in
     substance, that the court did not establish the apartment  o  be  a  rent-
     controlled apartment but merely found that the tenant should  be  entitled
     to rent  control  protection;  that  an  application  for  owner-occupancy
     decontrol is pending before the agency under Docket No. CK 220550-R;  that
     the court erroneously established that the apartment from which the tenant 
     had moved was rent-controlled,  and  that  the  rent  established  by  the
     District Rent Administrator was too low.

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

     With regard to the first issue raised by the landlord, it  is  clear  that
     the Court found that the tenant's apartment was subject to  rent  control.
     The contention of the landlord, that the Court merely found the tenant  to
     be entitled  o  rent  control  protection  but  not  that  she  was  rent-
     controlled, is not supported by the  record.   Moreover,  the  distinction
     sought to be drawn by the landlord would, even  if  accurate,  be  one  of
     semantics rather than substance.

     As to the landlord's assertion  to  the  effect  that  an  owner-occupancy
     decontrol proceeding was pending under Docket No. CK 220550-R, the  record
     reveals that that is the docket number of the proceeding under  review  in
     this case.

     As to the assertedly "erroneous" finding by the court that  the  apartment
     from which the tenant moved in 1983 was rent-controlled, the  Commissioner
     notes that the landlord made the same assertion by way of  his  motion  to
     the court to "reinconsider," and that the court's ruling on this issue was 
     adverse to the landlord.

      With regard to the determination of the subject maximum  rent,  a  review
     of the record reveals no basis for establishing  the  rent  at  an  amount
     higher than that established by  the  District  Rent  Administrator.   The
     Commissioner notes the landlord's right to apply for entry  into  the  MBR
     system, under which annual rent increases may be granted if warranted.

     As the landlord, who, with his co-landlords, was represented by counsel in 
     the court proceeding, has offered no other basis for rejecting the court's 
     determination or the District Rent Administrator's order, the Commissioner 
     is of the opinion that the order of the District Rent Administrator should 
     be affirmed.






          DOCKET NUMBER: EG 220143-RO
     THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent and Rehabilitation Law and the 
     Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is

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

     ISSUED:




















                                                                   
                                             ELLIOT SANDER
                                          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