ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FL220077RO
                                  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   S.J.R. NO. 7233
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO. FL220077RO 

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO. FB220014RP 
                          DARBY TOWNSEND,
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X

          ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING TO THE RENT ADMINISTRATOR

               On December 20, 1991, the above-named landlord filed a 
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on November 
          22, 1991 by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as Apartment 3F, 106 Pierrepont Street, 
          Brooklyn, New York.  

               Subsequently, the subject landlord filed a petition in the 
          Supreme Court, in the nature of an application for a writ of 
          mandamus, requesting that a determination of the landlord's 
          administrative appeal be issued.

               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 April 9, 1987, the rent agency issued an order under Docket 
          No. KC000685AD which determined that the subject tenant has resided 
          in the subject apartment since prior to June 30, 1971; that the 
          subject apartment is rent controlled, and that the subject 
          apartment's maximum rent should be $255.74 per month effective June 
          30, 1982.

               On May 14, 1987, the subject landlord filed a petition for 
          administrative review of the above-mentioned order.





















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FL220077RO

               The Commissioner issued an order on February 14, 1991 under 
          Docket No. BE220411RO which remanded the proceeding to the Rent 
          Administrator to determine the issues raised by the subject 
          landlord.  In the above-mentioned Commissioner's order, the 
          Commissioner ordered that the Administrator's order, issued under 
          Docket No. KC000685AD, remain in "full force and effect until a new 
          order is issued on remand."

               On October 16, 1991, the Administrator mailed to the parties 
          a notice which stated, among other things, that: "The owner claims 
          that the subject premises is not subject to the Regulations due to 
          a conversion of the premises after May 1, 1950 under Section 11 
          (now known as Section 2200.9 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations). 
          Both the owner and the tenant are to submit proof to substantiate 
          their claim."

               Also on October 16, 1991, the Administrator mailed a notice to 
          the subject landlord directing him to submit to the rent agency 
          copies of all Certificates of Occupancy (C. of O.) for the subject 
          building, copies of all "Altered Building Applications," and to 
          show proof as to when the subject building was constructed.

               On November 6, 1991, the subject landlord submitted to the 
          rent agency, among other things, the following: 

                    1) A copy of an application to alter 
                       the subject building filed with
                       the New York City's Department of
                       Housing and Buildings (the 
                       predecessor agency to the City's
                       Department of Buildings), under
                       Application Number Alt.207/49, which
                       noted that the subject building
                       contained seven apartments; that
                       the first floor had one apartment
                       containing four rooms; that the
                       landlord, among other things,
                       proposed to change the first floor
                       of the subject building from 
                       containing one apartment to two
                       apartments; that the landlord
                       proposed that the two apartments
                       on the first floor would still have
                       a total of four rooms, and that the
                       landlord proposed to change the 
                       number of apartments in the subject
                       building from seven to eight 
                       apartments;


                    2) A copy of an C. of O. apparently
                       issued in 1951 which noted that the






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FL220077RO

                       subject building has four stories
                       containing two apartments on each
                       floor, for a total of eight 
                       apartments; 

                    3) A copy of an application to alter
                       the subject building filed with 
                       the Department of Buildings, under
                       Application Number Alt. 12/79, 
                       which proposed to reduce the 
                       subject building's occupancy by
                       combining the first and second
                       floor into one duplex apartment,
                       and 

                    4) A copy of the subject building's 
                       C. of O., dated February 27, 1990,
                       which noted that the first and 
                       second stories have been converted
                       into one duplex apartment, and that
                       the subject building contained five
                       apartments.

               In the order under review herein, the Administrator determined 
          that the rent agency's order issued under Docket No. KC000685AD 
          should be affirmed, and that the subject apartment's maximum rent 
          should be $255.74 per month effective June 30, 1982.  Furthermore, 
          in the order the Administrator stated that: "The Rent Administrator 
          determines that the extent of the work completed does not 
          constitute a substantial rehabilitation.  Therefore, the subject 
          premises remains subject to the Rent Stabilization Code."

               In his petition the subject landlord states that: "The record 
          in this matter clearly reflects a conversion between 1946 and 1950.  
          As such, the premises would have been decontrolled automatically.  
          Thus, they would not be subject to control, but only rent 
          stabilization under the ETPA of 1974.  A finding of rent control is 
          not warranted."

               In the tenant's answer she asserts, among other things, that 
          she has continuously resided in the subject apartment since August, 
          1967.

               After careful consideration, the Commissioner finds that this 
          proceeding should be remanded to the Administrator for further 
          processing.


               The relevant rent regulation in this proceeding is Section 
          2200.9(a)(1) of the City Rent and Eviction Regulations which states 
          in part that:













          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FL220077RO

                    Upon application of the landlord, the 
                    administrator shall issue an order 
                    decontrolling additional housing 
                    accommodations, other than rooming
                    house accommodations, resulting from
                    conversion of housing accommodations
                    on or after May 1, 1950, if there has
                    been a structural change involving
                    substantial alterations or remodeling
                    and such change has resulted in 
                    additional housing accommodations 
                    consisting of self-contained family
                    units....

               Pursuant to the aforementioned rent regulation, the issuance 
          of a decontrol order by the rent agency is warranted when the 
          conversion of the subject building results in additional housing 
          accommodations consisting of "self-contained family units" which 
          exceeds the total number of housing accommodations that existed 
          before the conversion of the subject building.

               The record reflects that prior to the approval of the 
          application filed with the aforementioned Department of Housing and 
          Buildings, under Application Number Alt.207/49, the subject 
          building contained seven apartments.

               The landlord claims the housing accommodations in question are 
          subject to the Rent Stabilization Law rather than City Rent 
          Control, based on a conversion allegedly ocurring between 1946 and 
          1950 and resuling in decontrol under applicble Rent Law and 
          Regulations provisions.  The burden of proof is on the landlord to 
          establish that such a conversion occurred; that it resulted in 
          additional housing accommodations, qualifying as such at the time 
          the conversion occurred; and that such conversion occurred at a 
          time when it met the standards for decontrol set by the then 
          applicable statutory provisions and administrative regulations.

               Based upon the record, the Commissioner finds that it is not 
          clear whether the Administrator determined the issue of whether the 
          subject building contained more than seven self-contained family 
          units after the initial conversion of the subject building. 





               In the order under review herein, the Administrator affirmed 
          the order issued under Docket No. KC000685AD, which had determined 
          that the subject apartment is rent controlled; but the 
          Administrator also stated that "the subject premises remains 
          subject to the Rent Stabilization Code."  The Commissioner is 
          accordingly of the opinion that the Administrator's determination, 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FL220077RO

          as it pertains to the subject apartment's rental status, resulted 
          in two inconsistent decisions.

               As noted above, the Administrator's order issued under Docket 
          No. KC000685AD determined that the subject apartment is rent 
          controlled.  The Commissioner notes that the aforementioned 
          Commissioner's order issued under Docket No. BE220411RO ordered 
          that the Administrator's determination in Docket No. KC000685AD 
          remain in "full force and effect until a new order is issued on 
          remand."  Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the 
          Administrator's statement,in the order under review herein, which 
          stated that "the subject premises remains subject to the Rent 
          Stabilization Code" (emphasis supplied by the Commissioner) is 
          inconsistent with the two aforementioned prior orders of the rent 
          agency.

               Based upon the above-mentioned facts, the Commissioner finds 
          that the proceeding should be remanded to the Administrator for an 
          administrative determination, pursuant to Section 2202.22 of the 
          City Rent and Eviction Regulations, to reconsider the issues 
          pertaining to the subject building's rental status and, if 
          applicable, determine the subject apartment's legal rent.

               In the remand proceeding, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that the Administrator should give the parties to this proceeding 
          an opportunity to submit evidence pertaining to the issues of the 
          rental status of the subject apartment, and that such evidence 
          should include the number of self-contained family units contained 
          in the subject building subsequent to the alleged initial 
          conversion.

               Specifically, the Administrator should determine whether the 
          subject apartment is rent controlled or rent stabilized.  After 
          such determination is made the Administrator should consider the 
          maximum legal rent of the apartment.  If, because of the past 
          confusion as to the status of the apartment, that is not known, is 
          in doubt or in dispute the maximum legal rent should be established 
          or determined, as of the date of the tenant's first occupancy, and 
          updated if necessary.





               Based upon the aforementioned inconsistent decisions in the 
          Administrator's order under review herein, the Commissioner finds 
          that the order issued under Docket No. FB220014RP should be 
          revoked.

               The Commissioner further finds that the Administrator's order 
          issued on April 9, 1987 under Docket No. KC000685AD should remain 
          in full force and effect until a new order is issued on remand.












          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FL220077RO


               THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent and Rehabilitation 
          Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is 

               ORDERED, that this proceeding shall be remanded to the 
          Administrator for an administrative determination to reconsider the 
          issues pertaining to the rental status of the subject apartment and 
          the subject apartment's legal rent; and it is

               FURTHER ORDERED, that the Administrator's order, issued under 
          Docket No. FB220014RP, be, and the same hereby is revoked; and it 
          is 

               FURTHER ORDERED, that the subject apartment's maximum rent 
          effective June 30, 1982 shall be $255.74 per month, until a new 
          order is issued on remand.

          ISSUED:




                                                                           
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             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