Adm. Review Docket Nos.: HB220040RO & HI220099RO
                                 STATE OF NEW YORK 
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK  11433

          ------------------------------------X   SJR 7224
          APPEALS OF                              ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                                  DOCKET NOS.: HB220040RO
                                                    & HI220099RO
                REGINA FELTON,     
                                                  DRO DOCKET NOS.:
                                                  GH220012AD & HC220002RK
                                                  TENANT: MARCELLA     
                              PETITIONER                  GONZALES

          On February 5, 1993, the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on  
          January 15, 1993, by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, 
          Jamaica, New York, under DRO Docket Number GH220012AD, concerning 
          housing accommodations known as the Basement apartment (and 
          sometimes in these proceedings also referred to as the first floor 
          apartment) at 310 Hicks Street, Brooklyn, New York; wherein the 
          Administrator determined that the subject apartment has been a rent 
          controlled apartment since the date of the initial occupancy 
          thereof by Marcella Gonzales (i.e. the widow of Jose Gonzales); 
          that said Marcella Gonzales is the tenant entitled to occupy said 
          apartment and that the maximum legal rent that could be charged for 
          said apartment, effective January 1, 1993 was $ 280.00 per month. 
          Administrative Review Docket Number HB220040RO has been assigned to 
          that PAR.

          The owner also filed an application with the Administrator seeking 
          that the Administrator reconsider the order of January 15, 1993.   

          On  March 5, 1993, the Administrator granted the owner's 
          application for reconsideration and reopened the order issued 
          January 15, 1993. Docket Number HC220002RK was assigned to the 
          proceeding under which the order of January 15, 1993 was 

          On  August 19, 1993, the Administrator issued an order, under 
          Docket Number HC220002RK wherein the order of January 15, 1993 was 

          Adm. Review Docket Nos.: HB220040RO & HI220099RO

          On September 17, 1993, the petitioner-owner filed a PAR against the 
          order of August 19, 1993. Docket Number HI220099RO has been 
          assigned to that PAR.

          Subsequently, the owner filed a Proceeding under Article 78 of the 
          New York Civil Practice Law and Rules in the Supreme Court, Kings 
          County, seeking judicial review as to the deemed denial of the said  

          Thereafter, pursuant to an order of the Court, the matter was 
          remitted to the Division.

          Upon remit, pursuant to the Court's order, the Division has 
          afforded the parties an opportunity to submit further arguments and 

          Pursuant to 9NYCRR2208.1(c), the owner's two PARs are consolidated 

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the evidence relevant to 
          the issues raised in these administrative appeals.
          This proceeding was originally commenced upon the Division's 
          receipt of a letter dated July 7, 1992 from one of the tenant's 
          daughters, Martha Gonzales. In that letter, Martha stated that her 
          parents, Jose Gonzales, aged 89, and her mother, Marcella Gonzales, 
          aged 781, had been living in the Basement apartment at 310 Hicks 
          Street for the past twenty-two years; that the said building had 
          recently been sold; and that the new owner had sent her parents a 
          notice to terminate their tenancy as of August 1, 1992. Martha  
          also stated that she had discovered from the DHCR that the 
          apartment had never been registered. The letter went on to describe 
          the apartment as a garden apartment in a four family house. There 
          was submitted with the letter a copy of a letter from the 
          Consolidated Edison Company  of New York  to Jose Gonzales dated 
          December 12, 1991; a copy of the purchaser's portion of a money 
          order dated April 24, 1992 payable to Nicholas DePasquale for 
          $280.00, signed "J.Gonzales" and marked "310 Hicks Street, BK, NY, 
          Rent for May-92"; and a letter from New York Telephone to Jose 
          Gonzales dated December 13, 1991. 

          &Based on said letter, the Division commenced the proceeding 
          assigned Docket Number GH220012AD to determine the status of the 
          subject apartment; that is whether it is regulated and, if so, what 
          the maximum legal rent is.              

          Thereafter, through the various stages of these proceedings, the 
          parties have made various allegations and submitted documentary 
          evidence in an attempt to substantiate their allegations. 

          1 The Commissioner notes that Martha was off by one year as to 
          her mother's age. Her mother was 79 on July 7, 1992.

          Adm. Review Docket Nos.: HB220040RO & HI220099RO

          The owner has made multiple, sometimes inconsistent, allegations 
          with respect to the occupancy of the subject apartment and 
          building; as well as allegations concerning the respective places 
          of residence of some of the tenant's family members. The essence of 
          the owner's position, at first, was that the person seeking a 
          determination that she was the legal tenant was not Marcella 
          Gonzales, the widow of Jose Gonzales, but Marcella Gonzales, the 
          daughter of Jose Gonzales.2 The owner has also contended that Jose 
          Gonzales (and/or Marcella, mere) moved from the fourth floor 
          apartment of the subject building to the Basement apartment in 
          1983. The owner has also contended that at one point Jose and his 
          wife resided in the third floor apartment. Again, the owner has 
          alleged that the Gonzales's moved to the Basement apartment from 
          another apartment in the said building in or about 1989; and the 
          owner has also asserted that Marcella, fille, moved from the fourth 
          floor apartment in the subject building, terminating her telephone 
          service there on June 14, 1983, to Apt. 17G at 85 Livingston 
          Street, Brooklyn. Later in the proceedings, the owner attempted to 
          show that records pertaining to Jose Gonzales, who had died on July 
          22, 1992, were not the records which were being used to prove the 
          tenant's allegations but that records pertaining to Joseph Gonzales 
          (who, the owner asserted, resides in Queens and, from time to time, 
          has given his address as 310 Hicks Street) were the records that 
          were being so used. The owner has also alleged, without any 
          substantiation, that Consolidated Edison has records showing that 
          Jose Gonzales had used emergency medical equipment at the fourth 
          floor of the subject building.

          The tenant, in substance, has alleged that she is the widow of Jose 
          Gonzales, and had resided in the basement apartment (the apartment 
          on the ground floor of the subject building) with her said husband 
          from August of 1970; that she has continued to reside in said 
          apartment after her husband's death; that Henrietta Gonzales 
          (deceased), Martha Gonzales, Marcella Gonzales and Joseph Gonzales 
          are her children; and that some of her children have, from time to 
          time used 310 Hicks Street as a mailing address for various 
          purposes as a matter of convenience to them. The tenant also states 
          that her failure to submit records as to her rent payments is due 
          to the fact that, as was customary for her generation, such matters 
          were left to her husband. 

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that there are only two 
          questions of fact upon which this matter turns. 1. Was Marcella 
          Gonzales (who is, now, the widow of Jose Gonzales) a tenant in 
          occupancy of the subject apartment as of June 29, 1971? 2. If so, 
          did she remain in occupancy from that time up to the time of the 

          2 Hereinafter Marcella Gonzales, the mother, the tenant of the 
          subject apartment, will be distinguished from her daughter, 
          Marcella Gonzales, by having the mother's first name followed by 
          the French word for mother, mere, and the daughter's first name 
          followed by the French word for daughter, fille.

          Adm. Review Docket Nos.: HB220040RO & HI220099RO

          issuance of the Administrator's determinations hereinbelow?

          The Commissioner is, further, of the opinion that the record herein 
          contains substantial evidence proving that the answer to each of 
          these questions is in the affirmative; and, therefore, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeals 
          herein should be denied and the order of August 19, 1993 issued 
          under Docket Number HC220002RK (wherein the order of January 15, 
          1993 was affirmed), should be affirmed.

          The Commissioner makes the following findings of fact based on 
          evidence submitted by the parties.

               1. There is no issue but that the subject building was built 
          prior to January 1, 1947 and that it consists of four floors with 
          one apartment on each floor.

               2. The tenant of the subject apartment is a woman who is now, 
          generally, known as Marcella Gonzales; who was born Marcelina 
          Iglesias in Spain on September 26, 1912; who married Jose Gonzales 
          at the church of St. Mary Magdalene De Pazzi in Philadelphia , 
          Pennsylvania on January 11, 1930; who gave birth to a daughter 
          named Henrietta Gonzales on December 24, 1930 at Long Island 
          College Hospital while residing at 310 Hicks Street, Brooklyn, New 
          York; and who gave birth to a daughter named Marcella Gonzales on 
          March 14, 1934 at the same hospital while residing at 310 Hicks 
          Street. See the marriage certificate of Jose and Marcella Gonzales, 
          the Hospital and the New York City Department of Health birth 
          certificates for Henrietta Gonzales, the death certificate for Jose 
          Gonzales and the United States passport issued on March 15, 1979 to 
          Marcelina Gonzales, all of which were submitted under Docket No. 
          GH220012AD; and see the Hospital and the New York City Department 
          of Health birth certificates for Marcella Gonzales submitted under 
          Docket No. HB220040RO.

               3. That Marcella, mere, received a medicare statement dated 
          August 28, 1991 addressed to her at the subject building and said 
          statement indicates, by the account number thereon (which account 
          number consists of Jose Gonzales's Social Security number followed 
          by a capital "B"), that Marcella, mere 's coverage derived from the 
          Social Security account of her spouse, Jose Gonzales; and that 
          Marcella, mere, received a letter from Blue Cross/Blue Shield dated 
          October 11, 1989, indicating, by the account number thereon, that 
          the medical insurance coverage provided the tenant under said plan 
          also derived from Jose Gonzales's Social Security account. See the 
          Medicare statement dated August 28, 1991 and the Blue Cross/Blue 
          Shield statement dated October 11, 1989, both submitted under 
          Docket Number HB220040RO.

               4. That "J. Gonzales" had an account with the Brooklyn Union 
          Gas Company at the Basement apartment of the subject building from 

          Adm. Review Docket Nos.: HB220040RO & HI220099RO

          August 10, 1970 and said account was active as of October 15, 1992; 
          that V. DiMare had an account with said Company at the 3rd Floor 
          apartment from January 1, 1960 through November 22, 1989; that M. 
          Santos had an account with said Company at the 2nd Floor apartment 
          from April 23, 1984 through September 23, 1991; and that M. 
          DiPasquali had an account with said Company at the 1st Floor 
          apartment3 from January 1, 1960 through December 9, 1991. See the 
          letter from the Brooklyn Union Gas Company dated October 15, 1992 
          submitted under Docket Number GH220012AD.

                5. That the owner purchased this building from Ninfa 
          DePasquale, as the representative of the Estate of Vittina DiMare, 
          under a Contract of Sale that had a Rider dated March 27, 1992 
          wherein the owner agreed that the proposed purchase was subject to 
          the tenancy  of "Gonzalez" at a rent of $ 275.00 per month 
          (described in said Rider as a month to month tenancy with no 
          security held by the former owner and no lease in effect). See the 
          Rider to said contract submitted under Docket Number GH220012AD.

               6. That on February 5, 1983, J. "Gonzalez" whose address was 
          indicated as "310 Hicks St., Apt B" and whose telephone number was 
          indicated as U[8] L[5] 5-5317 purchased a "19 In Remot" from
          Macy's. See the letter and receipt from Macy's submitted under 
          Docket Number GH220012AD.

               7. That Jose Gonzales had telephone service at 310 Hicks 
          Street since December 12, 1968 under telephone number 855-5317 and 
          that current charges were billed to that telephone number on June 
          13, 1992. See the letter from the New York Telephone Company dated 
          December 13, 1991, and the New York Telephone Company bill dated 
          June 13, 1992 submitted under Docket Number GH220012AD.

               8. That Jose Gonzales of 310 Hicks Street, 1st Floor has had 
          an account with the Consolidated Edison Company at said address 
          since August 10, 1970 and that charges were being billed to said 
          account as of July 7, 1992. See the letter from Consolidated Edison 
          Company dated December 12, 1991 and the bill from said Company 
          dated July 7, 1992 both submitted under Docket Number GH220012AD. 

               9. That mail postmarked June 14, 1972 and August 19, 1991 was 
          sent addressed to Marcella Gonzales at the subject building and two 
          pharmacy labels dated August 7, 1991 were addressed to Marcella 
          Gonzales at the subject building. See the copies of the three 
          envelopes, two bearing a June 14, 1972 postmark and one bearing an 
          August 19, 1991 postmark submitted under Docket Number GH220012AD; 
          and see the two labels from Barney's Pharmacy submitted under 
          Docket Number HB220040RO.

               10. That on February 3, 1986, a United States passport was 

          3This letter referred to the various floors in the building by 
          the "European" method of denoting the floor above the street level 
          as the "first floor".

          Adm. Review Docket Nos.: HB220040RO & HI220099RO

          issued to a Marcella Gonzales whose date of birth was March 14, 
          1934 and whose appearance and signature are readily distinguishable 
          from those of Marcella mere, to whom a United States passport was 
          issued on March 15, 1979; that W-2 forms for 1983 and 1984 were 
          issued by La Mancha to Marcella fille of 85 Livingston Street, 
          whose Social Security number is different from that of her mother, 
          the tenant; that the New York Telephone Company residential 
          listings for Brooklyn for 1992-93 and the Talking Yellow Book 
          Telephone Directory for Brooklyn Heights/Park Slope both listed an 
          M. Gonzales at 85 Livingston Street with telephone number 875-5658 
          and a J. Gonzales at 310 Hicks Street with telephone number 855- 
          5317; that Marcella fille is co-owner of her apartment, 17G at 85 
          Livingston Street, with John P. Capobianco and that the Social 
          Security number on file with the Managing agent for 85 Livingston 
          Street for the owners of said Apartment 17G is not the Social 
          Security of the tenant or of her daughter Marcella; that Marcella 
          fille has medical insurance with GHI and her account number 
          corresponds to her own Social Security number. See passport issued 
          February 3, 1986, expiration date February 2, 1996; W-2 forms from 
          La Mancha for 1983 and 1984; letter dated January 26, 1993 from WPG 
          Residential, Inc. to Regina Felton; letter dated January 28, 1993 
          from WPG Residential, Inc. to Regina Felton; two GHI statements 
          dated October 6, 1989 and August 18, 1990, respectively, addressed 
          to Marcella Gonzales at 85 Livingston Street; the Social Security 
          card of Marcella, mere4, (all of which documents were submitted 
          under Docket Number HB220040RO); and the copies of the relevant 
          pages of the New York Telephone Company directory for Brooklyn and 
          the Talking Yellow Book directory submitted under Docket Number 

                11. That Marcella fille has registered to vote from her 
          address of 85 Livingston Street. See the copies the Board of 
          Elections sign-in sheets and correspondence submitted by the owner 
          under Docket Number HB220040RO.

                12. That the tenant's son, Joseph Gonzales, was born on April 
          1, 1932; that he had been employed by the Chase Manhattan Bank; 
          that his Social Security number is different from Jose Gonzales's 
          Social Security Number; that Joseph had indicated, on a Chase 
          retirement information form dated December 23, 1987, that he 
          resided at 310 Hicks Street, that his telephone number was 855- 
          5317; and that he had no spouse; that in response to the owner's 
          inquiries, the Chase Manhattan Bank stated that it had no record of 
          a Jose Gonzales with a Social Security Number corresponding to that 
          on the death certificate of Jose Gonzales, but that it had a record 

          4The Commissioner notes that, consistently, the signature of 
          Marcella, mere, is readily distinguishable from that of her 
          daughter, Marcella's by virtue of the fact that the mother starts 
          "Gonzales" with a "G" that looks more like a large lower case "G" 
          than what is traditionally known in script as a capital "G", while 
          Marcella, fille, starts "Gonzales" with a traditional script 
          capital "G".

          Adm. Review Docket Nos.: HB220040RO & HI220099RO

          of a former employee, Joseph Gonzales of 310 Hicks Street who had 
          not, as of November 12, 1993, been reported as deceased and who had 
          started to receive retirement benefits on May 1, 1991; that the 
          owner submitted copies of sixteen checks drawn on Joseph Gonzales's 
          account at Chase Manhattan Bank which were signed by Marcella 
          fille; that there was a telephone directory listing for Joseph 
          Gonzales at an address in Woodside Queens indicating Joseph 
          Gonzales's telephone number was 476-3478. See Exhibits 8 through 13 
          annexed to the (undated) affirmation of Regina Felton containing 
          twenty-four numbered paragraphs, which was submitted upon remit 
          from the Court.

          The Commissioner notes that the Division's staff has  discovered no 
          record of the subject building's having been registered with the 
          United States Office of Price Administration during World War II or 

          The Commissioner finds that the main thrust of the owner's 
          challenge to the tenant's allegations rests on the following items 
          of evidence.

               a) The owner argues that the tenant's inability to produce 
          proof of rent payments must provide the basis for a negative 
          inference. The Commissioner finds that this argument is without 
          merit in the light of the facts that, on the one hand, the owner 
          has neither claimed nor established any foundation for a claim that 
          she has any personal knowledge about the facts relating to this 
          tenancy either prior to her acquisition of the building, in the 
          middle of 1992, or thereafter; and, on the other hand, the owner 
          has failed to submit, or explain her failure to submit, any 
          evidence relating thereto from the prior owner or the prior owner's 
          personal representative. The Commissioner believes that, having 
          dealt directly with the prior owner's personal representative for 
          the purchase of the building, the owner was in a position to demand 
          whatever records may have been kept by the prior owner and/or her 

          5 The Commissioner notes that at paragraph 9 of the owner's 
          twenty-four paragraph affirmation, the owner asserts that the 
          decedent from whose Estate she purchased this building died in  
          1953. The Commissioner notes that in the State of New York a 
          personal representative of a decedent's estate is appointed by the 
          courts and is answerable to the courts for the management of the 
          estate's assets. The Commissioner would find it an unusual 
          situation, therefore, for a court appointed fiduciary, or 
          fiduciaries, who had managed  property for thirty-nine years to 
          have no records as to the rents received and the tenants residing 

          Adm. Review Docket Nos.: HB220040RO & HI220099RO

personal representative relating to the tenant's status.5

               b) The owner places a great deal of reliance on a document the 
          owner claims to have obtained from the New York Telephone Company6.
          The Commissioner finds that said document, initially submitted 
          under Docket Number GH220012AD, is of highly questionable probative 
          value. This document appears, as best as it can be made out, to be 
          a printout of Telephone Company information relating to the account 
          of J. Gonzales at 310 Hicks Street. The Commissioner notes that the 
          copy of the printout submitted appears to be incomplete (with the 
          left side of the page cut off and part of the right side of the 
          page missing) and that the information on it is so sketchy and 
          abbreviated as to be incapable of comprehension without an 
          explanation. For example, the owner would have us read the 
          following as proving that the telephone service of J. Gonzales was 
          received at the fourth floor of the subject building up until June 
          14, 1983

          "LOC            FLR 4/DES NO LOC                    I  6-14-83".

          The tenant asserts that said legend merely indicates that the 
          building contains four floors and that the location of the service 
          is not designated. Noting that the earliest date which appears on 
          this document, December 12, 1968, corresponds to the date the New 
          York Telephone Company letter of December 3, 1991 gives as the 
          starting date for Jose Gonzales's telephone service under 855-5317 
          (no telephone number appears on the printout the owner submitted), 
          the Commissioner finds that this printout probably does relate to 
          said service; but other than that, the Commissioner finds that 
          little else can be determined from looking at this document. 
          However, it does appear, as there are dates on the document which 
          occur later than June 14, 1983 (the most recent date appearing on 
          the document is May 13, 1991), that this document would not seem to 
          substantiate the owner's claim that Jose Gonzales's service at 310 
          Hicks Street was terminated on that date.

               c) The owner contends that certain Brooklyn Federal Savings 
          Bank records for Marcella, fille, (Exhibit 6 annexed to the twenty- 
          four paragraph affirmation submitted by the owner) support the 
          owner's contention that Marcella, fille, moved into the subject 
          apartment after Jose Gonzales's death in June of 1992 and 
          thereafter has attempted to pass herself off as the legal tenant of 
          said apartment. The Commissioner notes that whereas the record 
          submitted for 1992 appears to be a readily recognizable document, 
          an IRS Form 1099, the document whereon the number 1991 appears is 
          not a readily identifiable document. The Commissioner further notes 
          that whereas what appear to be two bank account numbers appear on 
          each document, only one of the two numbers which appear on each 

          on said property.
          6 The Commissioner notes that the tenant challenges the 
          authenticity of this document and the manner in which it was 

          Adm. Review Docket Nos.: HB220040RO & HI220099RO

          document match. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to show 
          when Marcella, fille, may have advised the Bank to change her 
          address on its records; that is, whether the change was made after 
          Jose Gonzales's death or several months prior thereto. In summary, 
          for what they are submitted to prove, said records are not 
          competent evidence. 

          The Commissioner further notes the following points which he 
          considered in reaching the determination herein.

               i) The use by the tenant's grown children of the subject 
          apartment as a mailing address, for whatever reasons, does not 
          prove that any of them live there; especially since the owner has 
          submitted documentary evidence tending to show that the two 
          children who so used that address have long established residences 

               ii) What is quite relevant, in the Commissioner's opinion, and 
          noticeably absent from the owner's evidence is proof that Marcella, 
          mere, lives anywhere other than the subject apartment; particularly 
          in view of the substantial body of evidence the tenant has 
          submitted to show that she and her late husband resided there since 
          at least 1970.

               iii) The Commissioner finds that the Brooklyn Union Gas 
          Company letter dated October 15, 1992 is a significant piece of 
          evidence. It not only substantiates the tenant's residency in the 
          Basement apartment from 1970 on; it also rebuts the owner's 
          contentions that the tenant resided in the fourth floor apartment 
          and the third floor apartment at any time relevant herein.

               iv) The Commissioner also notes, as to the owner's original 
          contention that Marcella fille, and not Marcella mere, is occupying 
          the subject apartment, that proof of said contention should have 
          been readily available from the personal observations of the owner 
          and/or those acting on the owner's behalf to make such 
          observations. Nothing resembling evidence of this nature was 
          submitted by the owner; merely the owner's assertion (with no 
          foundation as to who observed what, where and when) that the woman 
          in the apartment is too young to have been married in 1930.

               v) In the absence of anything in the record to rebut the 
          tenant's statement that the listing of Jose Gonzales's address and 
          that of his spouse, Marcella Gonzales, as 301 Hicks Street in Jose 
          Gonzales's death certificate was an error that is in the process of 
          being corrected; in view of the fact that it was the tenant who 
          first submitted this document; and in view of the fact that the 
          owner has, for the most part, alleged that Jose Gonzales resided at 
          310 Hicks Street, the Commissioner finds that said listing is of no 
          significance to these proceedings. 

          Adm. Review Docket Nos.: HB220040RO & HI220099RO

               vi) The Commissioner finds that the owner's objections to 
          certain of the tenant's submissions based on a claim that they were 

          7 Although there is no requirement that submissions be 
          verified, the Commissioner notes that the owner's submissions may 
          not have been properly verified. The New York Civil Practice Law 
          and Rules provides that an attorney, which the owner appears to be, 
          can affirm a statement and such a statement is acceptable as an 
          affidavit, but the Commissioner finds no authority for an 
          attorney's executing a verification without taking an oath before 
          one empowered to take oaths, such as a notary public. Nevertheless, 
          such a "verification" is what the owner has used in those of her 
          papers which purport to contain a verification.

               Adm. Review Docket Nos.: HB220040RO & HI220099RO

not verified is without merit.7                The Commissioner also finds that 
               the owner's objection to the tenant's last submission as untimely 
               is without merit. The Court, in its remit order, provided for time 
               limitations for the owner's submissions and the time within which, 
               after the final submission, the Commissioner was to issue a 
               determination herein, but the Court set no such time limit for the 
               tenant's reply to the owner's post remit submission. Moreover, the 
               twenty day period specified in the Division's notice to the tenant, 
               under which the tenant was served with the owner's first post remit 
               submission, was not a strict time limitation. The notice provided 
               that if the tenant failed to respond to the Notice timely it "may 
               result in a determination based on the record as it is presently 
               constituted"(emphasis supplied); that is, absent the submission to 
               be made. Further, the Commissioner notes that the tenant's response 
               to that Notice was, essentially nothing more than a restatement of 
               the previously enunciated positions taken by the tenant throughout 
               these proceedings. 

                    vii) In neither PAR did the owner challenge the 
               Administrator's finding as to the amount of the maximum legal rent.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to all of the applicable laws and regulations, 
               it is

               ORDERED, that these Petitions be, and the same hereby are denied; 
               that the order issued August 19, 1993 under Docket Number 
               HC220002RK (wherein the order issued January 15, 1993 under Docket 
               Number GH220012AD was affirmed) be, and the same hereby is 


                                                  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