Konigsberg v. Caputa

• Decision Date: 26 April 1960
• Citation: 199 N.Y.S.2d 542,10 A.D.2d 379
• Parties: Application of Frank KONIGSBERG et al., as Tenants' Committee of 225 West 86 th Street, New York, N. Y., Petitioner-Appellant, for an order pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, v. Joseph J. CAPUTA, as State Rent Administrator of State of New York Temporary State Housing Rent Commission, Respondent-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 542

199 N.Y.S.2d 542

10 A.D.2d 379

Application of Frank KONIGSBERG et al., as Tenants' Committee of 225 West 86 th Street, New York, N Y., Petitioner-Appellant, for an order pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, v. Joseph J. CAPUTA, as State Rent Administrator of State of New York Temporary State Housing Rent Commission Respondent-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 26, 1960.

Eugene J. Morris, New York City, of counsel (Matthew J. Domber and Robert S. Goldstein with him on the brief; Demov & Morris, New York City, attys.), for appellant.

Florence R. Zimmerman, New York City, of counsel (Harold Zucker, New York City, atty.), for respondent.

Before BREITEL, J. P., and RABIN, VALENTE, McNALLY and STEVENS, JJ.

McNALLY, Justice.

In this article 78 proceeding, the appeal is from an order dismissing the petition herein. The petition is one to annul the final determination of a protest addressed to the order of the Local Rent Administrator restoring a rent decrease and denying the application of the tenants for a further decrease in rent.

The premises consist of six 12-story multiple dwellings grouped around a common courtyard bounded by Broadway, West 86th Street, Amsterdam Avenue, and West 87th Street, County of New York.

On August 31, 1950 the landlord's application to convert six manually operated passenger elevators to automatic elevators was granted provided, among other things, that the landlord maintain 24-hour doorman service at the West 86th Street main entrance, 24-hour guard service within the courtyard, and 24-hour manually operated central switchboard service.

On June 17, 1957 the tenants applied for a decrease in rent for failure to maintain essential services. The said application was terminated by a stipulation dated December 3, 1957 between the tenants and the landlord and approved by the Local Rent Administrator whereby the parties stipulated that the services therein specified and described were essential services. Among them were 24-hour doorman service at the main entrance on West 86th Street, 24-hour guard control in the inner court and adequate switchboard service.

On June 3, 1958 the tenants filed a second application for a decrease in rent by reason of the landlord's failure to maintain essential services. On July 23, 1958 an order was made by the Local Rent Administrator reducing the maximum rent by reason of the landlord's failure to comply with the stipulation of December 3, 1957 in respect of the intercommunication system, the 87th Street service door, stairwell doorlocks, walks, driveway and passenger elevators. The said order reserved the right of the tenants to apply for a further decrease in the event the landlord fails to render the required doorman service at the main entrance and guard service in the inner court.

Subsequent to the stipulation of December 3, 1957 and prior to the order decreasing the rents made July 23, 1958, the tenants and the landlord entered into a stipulation dated April 1, 1958. The stated purpose of the last stipulation was to implement the stipulation of December 3, 1957. Thereby the landlord undertook to install a new intercommunication switchboard and to install it on the wall of the switchboard room so as to permit observation by the operator thereof of the building entrance and the courtyard. In addition, the landlord, by the last-described stipulation, undertook to proceed with the renovation of five of the passenger elevators, one having been renovated prior thereto, at the rate of no less than one elevator a month. The stipulation of April 1, 1958 was before the Local Rent Administrator and his order of July 23, 1958 was made in the light thereof. Implicit therein--in the stipulation--is an admission of a deficiency in essential service in respect of the intercommunication system and passenger elevators. On said date it appears that the landlord had failed to install an intercommunication system as provided in the stipulation of April 1, 1958 and had not renovated the elevators as therein provided.

On August 15, 1958 the tenants filed a third application for the reduction of rent grounded on the deficiencies in essential services reserved in the order of July 23, 1958, to wit, failure to render doorman service at the main entrance and guard service in the inner court. Thereafter and on September 3, 1958 the landlord countered with an application for the restoration of the reduction in maximum rents effected by the order of July 23, 1958. After a conference had on October 20, 1958 a report was made by an examiner and the supervisor of the 'T' unit of the Local Rent Administrator recommending that the tenants' application to reopen the proceeding to reduce the maximum rents be denied and that the landlord's application to restore the reduction of the maximum rents be processed on the merits. The said report notes parenthetically that the intercommunication system was located in its present position as a result of the order permitting the conversion to automatic operation of the passenger elevators and it would be unjust to require the landlord to relocate it now.

On November 28, 1958 the Local Rent Administrator made his order adjusting the maximum rents by eliminating the decrease thereof ordered on July 23, 1958. The order of November 28, 1958 is grounded on the restoration of essential services in regard to intercommunication, the 87th Street service door, walks, driveway and elevators. On December 22, 1958 the tenants filed a protest addressed to the order of the Local Rent Administrator dated November 28, 1958. On March 18, 1959 the State Rent Administrator issued his order denying the protest and affirming the orders of the Local Rent Administrator. The said order provides, in part, as follows:

'With regard to other alleged decreases in services raised by the tenants in their protest, the tenants are advised that such alleged decreases in services, to wit: odors in the hall and general building maintenance are not considered herein. Although such services may have been included in the original stipulation between the tenants and the landlord it should be noted that such alleged decreases in services were not the basis for the Local Rent Administrator's original decreases in the maximum rents of the subject units nor mentioned in the landlord's application for a restoration of the maximum rents. Should the facts so warrant, the tenants are advised that they may file separate applications for an adjustment in the maximum rents by virtue of such alleged decreases in services, and this order and opinion is without prejudice to the right of the tenants to file such application.'

We address ourselves to the following alleged deficiencies in essential services: (1) doorman service; (2) guard service; (3) elevator service; and (4) intercommunication switchboard service. The guard, doorman and switchboard services are interrelated.

Section 24 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations, McK.Unconsol.Laws, Appendix, provides that the landlord 'shall provide * * * the same essential services, furniture, furnishings and equipment as were provided, or were required to be provided, on March 1, 1950 or any subsequent date determining the maximum rent.' It would appear that until in or about 1956, in addition to doorman and guard services, the landlord furnished...