Adm. Rev. Docket NO.: AK 410406-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.: AK 410406-RO 
                                            :  
          ABINGTON HOLDING/ABI KALIMIAN,       DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                               DOCKET NO.: ZL 001785-RV 
                              PETITIONER    : 
        ------------------------------------X                           
          
          ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW,
                        UPON REOPENING AND RECONSIDERATION

        This Order and Opinion arises from the Commissioner's  order  issued
        on April 8, 1991, granting the owner's request  for  reconsideration
        and reopening of the Administrative Revi w  Order  and  Opinion  AK-
        410406-RO issued by the Commissioner on February 21, 1991.

        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 administrative appeal.

        On November 5, 1986, the above-named  owner  filed  a  Petition  for
        Administrative Review against an order issued on October 23, 1986 by 
        the Rent  Administrator,  Gertz  Plaza,  92-31  Union  Hall  Street,
        Jamaica, New York, concerning Apartment No. 2-S at 295  Park  Avenue
        South, Manhattan, New York, wherein the Administrator  directed  the
        owner to offer the tenant a renewal lease.

        The original proceeding was commenced on October 15,  1984,  by  the
        filing of a complaint of the owner's failure to renew  a  lease,  by
        the tenant who alleged its lease expired on September 30,  1984  and
        that the owner failed to offer a  renewal  lease  within  the  time-
        period prescribed by the Rent Stabilization Law.

        A copy of the tenant's complaint and DHCR answer forms  were  mailed
        twice to the petitioner-owner at its correct address  as  stated  in
        the record.  On May 13, 1985, the owner was mailed  a  copy  of  the
        tenant's complaint, with a notification that  "failure  to  file  an
        answer within twenty (20) days  from  the  date  appearing  on  this
        letter  shall  be  considered  a  default  and   shall   result   in
        determination based on record."  Thereafter, a second mailing  of  a
        copy of the tenant's complaint was  made,  with  a  warning  to  the
        owner that this notice is final.   The  petitioner-owner  failed  to
        respond to the above notices.

        The Administrator's order determined that the tenant is eligible  to
        a renewal lease and that the owner  is  directed  to  offer  to  the
        tenant a renewal lease in the manner prescribed by law.

        The owner petitioned a review of this order, claiming  in  substance
        that the tenant has not resided in the apartment for over  6  years;
        that the tenant failed to execute a  renewal  lease;  and  that  two
        other prime tenants lived in this apartment.







        Adm. Rev. Docket NO.: AK 410406-RO

        In this Administrative Review Order and Opinion under Docket No. AK 
        410406-RO issued on February 21, 1991, the  Commissioner  originally
        denied  the  owner's  petition  and  found  that  the  Administrator
        properly determined that the tenant is entitled to a renewal  lease.
        Said order  stated  that  although  duly  notified  to  do  so,  the
        petitioner-owner did not respond to two DHCR notices below;  that  a
        copy of the tenant's complaint and DHCR  answer  forms  were  mailed
        twice to the petitioner-owner in its correct address  as  stated  in
        the record; that on May 13, 1985, the owner was mailed a copy of the 
        tenant's complaint, with a notification that  "Failure  to  file  an
        answer within twenty (20) days  from  the  date  appearing  on  this
        letter  shall  be  considered  a  default  and   shall   result   in
        determination based  on  record;"  and  that  thereafter,  a  second
        mailing of a copy  of  the  tenant's  complaint  was  made,  with  a
        warning to the owner that this notice is final.

        The above-named owner by letter, dated  March  21,  1991,  requested
        reopening of the above-referenced Administrative  Review  proceeding
        and  reconsideration  of  the  Order  and  Opinion  issued  by   the
        Commissioner on February 21, 1991, because the premises  are  exempt
        from Rent Stabilization Law.  The owner's request was granted by the 
        Commissioner in an order issued on April 8, 1991.

        The parties concerned were afforded twenty (20) days from  the  date
        of this order reopening  the  Administrative  Review  proceeding  to
        respond  in  writing  to  the  issues  raised  by  the  Request  for
        Reconsideration.
         
        Upon reviewing the record, and after careful  consideration  of  all
        evidence submitted, the Commissioner finds that the owner's petition 
        for administrative review under Docket No.  AK-410406-RO  should  be
        granted.

        As  submitted  by  the  owner  in  its  request  for  reopening  and
        reconsideration, it appears from DHCR's records that in an  entirely
        different  proceeding  under  Docket  No.  ZBE-410003-RP,  the  Rent
        Administrator determined, by order issued on June 14, 1988, that the 
        subject premises were not subject to Rent Stabilization pursuant  to
        Section 2520-11(e)  of  the  Rent  Stabilization  Code  (Substantial
        Rehabilitation).   The  latter  order  is  a   final   and   binding
        determination.   As  the  premises  are   exempt   from   the   Rent
        Stabilization Law, the owner is not obligated to offer the tenant  a
        renewal lease.

        THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law  and  Code,
        it is









        Adm. Rev. Docket NO.: AK 410406-RO


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

        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