Docket Number: EL-630002-RO
                                 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.: EL 630002-RO
                                            :  
           CYLINE PROPERTIES CO.,              DRO DOCKET NO.: DH  630068-OR
           
                              PETITIONER    : 
        ------------------------------------X                           
          
                  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING OWNER'S PETITION FOR 
                               ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

        On December  4,  1990,  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
        Petition for  Administrative  Review  against  an  order  issued  on
        October 31, 1990, concerning the  housing  accommodations  known  as
        3299 Cambridge Avenue, Bronx, New York, wherein in  pertinent  part,
        the Administrator denied the owner's application to restore rent, in 
        whole or in part, based on a finding that there was  no  doorman  or
        lobby attendant on duty at the time of two inspections.

        The issue in these proceedings is whether the Administrator's  order
        was correct.

        The applicable law is Section  2520.6(r)  and  2523.4  of  the  Rent
        Stabilization Code.

        The owner commenced these proceedings by filing  an  application  to
        restore rents previously reduced by an order issued  on  October  8,
        1985  under  Docket   No.   BCS-000095-B,   and   amended   by   the
        Commissioner's  order  under  Docket  No.  ART-5703-B,   issued   on
        September 30, 1987,  to  include  failure  to  provide  a  uniformed
        doorman/lobby attendant forty (40) hours a week as a basis  for  the
        rent reduction.  There is no record of any judicial  appeal  of  the
        Commissioner's determination.  

        The level of required doorman  services  was  established  in  prior
        separate  proceedings  under  Docket   No.   59681-B   wherein   the
        Administrator,  incorporating  an  agreement  between  the  parties,
        directed the owner to provide doorman services as follows:

               1.  The doorman shall be at the door providing
                   doorman services from 6:00 p.m. to 
                   11:00 p.m. five days-a-week;
               2.  From 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. five days-a-
                   week, the doorman shall either be at the
                   door providing doorman services or shall
                   provide porter services in the lobby or
                   on the first floor but not above the first
                   floor;

               3.  If the tenants find that the doorman is 
                   not at the door during the hours specified
                   above they shall notify the owner in 






          Docket Number: EL-630002-RO
                   writing, and the owner will take whatever
                   steps are necessary to ensure that the 
                   doorman is at the door.        

        In the application the  owner  asserted,  in  pertinent  part,  that
        doorman/lobby attendant services  were  being  provided  forty  (40)
        hours per week.

        In basically identical affidavits, as amplified by  a  cover  letter
        from the tenant's representative, the  tenants  conceded  that  the,
        individual hired as a "doorman" works full-time (40-hours per  week)
        but asserted that "he works as a part-time port r  and  as  a  part-
        time doorman totalling 40 hours a week" and that "during  the  hours
        of 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. (5 days a week) he works as porter throughout 
        the premises, from 5 to 6 p.m. is meal time, and beginning at 6 p.m. 
        he performs uniform doorman services until  11  p.m."   The  tenants
        contend that, as a consequence, they are being deprived of full-time 
        uniform doorman services, as required by the Commissioner's order.

        An inspection was conducted on April 26, 1990 by  a  member  of  the
        Division's inspection staff.  The inspector reported that there  was
        no doorman present at the time of inspection.

        A second inspection was conducted on  July  19,  1990,  wherein  the
        inspection again reported that there was no doorman/lobby  attendant
        at the time of inspection (2:45 - 3:30 p.m.).

        On October 31, 1990, the Administrator  issued  orders  denying  the
        owner's application to restore rent based on the owner's failure  to
        maintain and provide doorman/lobby attendant  services  pursuant  to
        the Commissioner's order under Docket No. ART-5703-B.               

        In the petition, the owner requests the Commissioner  to  annul  the
        Administrator's determination below, arguing in pertinent part, that 
        the fact that the DHCR inspector did not observe the  doorman  lobby
        attendant did not mean that the service prescribed was not provided. 
        The petitioner speculates that the April  26,  1990  inspection  may
        have been conducted in the morning, when  doorman  service  are  not
        required, and that at the time of the July 19, 1990 inspection,  the
        doorman may have been elsewhere in the building.

        A copy of the owner's petition was served on the tenant's.  However, 
        it does not appear that the tenants filed an answer.

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







          Docket Number: EL-630002-RO
        The petitioner's reliance on the separate prior order  under  Docket
        No.  59681-B  is  misplaced.   The  restriction  therein  that   the
        doorman/lobby attendant limit his porter functions to the  lobby  or
        to the first floor but not above the first floor clearly establishes 
        that  porter  services  were  incidental  and   attendant   to   the
        doorman/lobby functions and not a separate  job  function.   Nor  is
        there any license  apparant  therein  to  permit  the  doorman/lobby
        attendant to  perform  porter  services  to  the  exclusion  of  his
        permanent   duties.    The   Commissioner   likewise   rejects   the
        petitioner's  attempt  to   divine   a   distinction   between   the
        doorman/lobby attendant services required to be provided during  the
        afternoon shift from those provided during  the  evening  shift,  as
        well as  to  draw  a  distinction  between  the  doorman  and  lobby
        attendant services.

        The  petitioner's  speculations  that  the  doorman  may  have  been
        elsewhere at the time of the July 19, 1990 inspection, confirms
        the lack of service complained about by the tenants in January  1985
        continued thereafter, even though the owner was directed to  restore
        services, and was not an isolated or inadvertant occurrance due to a 
        new, and temporary employee.  Moreover, the  petitioner's  statement
        constitutes an admission that the  owner's  employee  was  elsewhere
        than the lobby/first floor area.

        As to the petitioner's claim  that  the  tenants  were  required  to
        notify the owner in writing of a problem with the doorman service is 
        rejected as being without merit or logic.  The  Commissioner  points
        out that the rent restoration proceeding, herein under  appeal  were
        commenced by the owner upon a representation that the services  were
        being provided.  Having represented that service were  restored,  it
        was incumbent upon the owner to take steps necessary to insure  that
        the doorman performed his duties in conformity with the prior  order
        under Docket No. 59681-B, and as directed to do so in the underlying 
        rent reduction order, modified by the  Commissioner  subsequent  PAR
        order under Docket No. ART 05703-B.  Moreover, that condition, while 
        constituting a condition to filing a complaint, does not excuse  the
        owner from the continuing responsibility for the  proper  management
        of building staff. 

        The owner is cautioned to insure that the doorman be  uniformed,  as
        previously directed.

        THEREFORE,  in  accordance  with   the   provision   of   the   Rent
        Stabilization Law and Code, Chapter 403 of the  Law  and  1983,  and
        Chapter 403 of the Law of 1983, and Chapter 102 of the Laws of 1984, 
        it is







          Docket Number: EL-630002-RO

        ORDERED, that this owner's petition be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
        denied, and that the 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