DOCKET NUMBER:  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
                                         :  
       ABINGTION HOLDING / ABI KALIMIAN,    DRO DOCKET NO.:  ZL-001785-RV

                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             


           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     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. 2S at 295 Park Avenue South, Manhattan, New 
     York, wherein the Administrator directed the owner to offer the  tenant  a
     renewal lease.

     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.

     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  (
     I. Christopher Vallejo, Jr.) who alleged this  current  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 in 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.

     In the order under appeal, the Administrator 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.








          DOCKET NUMBER:  AK-410406-RO

     The Commissioner is of the opinion  that this petition should be denied.

     Section 26-511 of the Rent Stabilization Law requires an owner to grant  a
     one-or two-year vacancy or renewal lease at  the  option  of  the  tenant.
     Furthermore, Section 48 of Chapter 403 of the Laws of 1983  requires  that
     for vacancy leases commencing on or after October 1, 1983, an owner  allow
     the tenant an option of a one-or two-year lease.  Section 23A  and  60  of
     the former Code provided in  pertinent  part  that  every  landlord  shall
     notify the tenant in occupancy not more than 150 days and  not  less  than
     120 days prior to the end of the tenant's lease  of  such  termination  of
     the lease term and offer to renew the lease at the  legal  regulated  rent
     permitted for such renewal and otherwise on the  same  conditions  as  the
     expiring lease.  These provisions were in effect when the tenant  and  the
     owner executed the vacancy lease.

     The record shows that although duly notified  o  do  so,  the  petitioner-
     owner did not respond to two DHCR notices below.  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.   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.

     Accordingly,  the  Commissioner  finds  that  the  Administrator  properly
     determined that the tenant is entitled to a renewal lease.

     As to the owner's allegations in this  petition,  the  Commissioner  notes
     that these contentions were not raised below, and the  Commissioner  shall
     not entertain  them  now  at  administrative  appeal.   In  addition,  the
     petitioner-owner produced  no  convincing  proof  in  its  denial  of  the
     tenant's primary residence.   Furthermore,  if  the  petitioner-owner  did
     offer the tenant  a  renewal  lease  (which  is  highly  unlikely  due  to
     insufficient evidence), the petitioner-owner failed to do so  pursuant  to
     sections of the Code cited above.

     The commissioner notes that if the owner failed to offer a  renewal  lease
     in accordance with the Administrator's order, the owner must now  offer  a
     lease in accordance with the Section 2523.5(c) of the  Rent  Stabilization
     Code, which took effect  May 1, 1987.  This section provides:

          (c) Where the owner fails to timely offer a renewal lease  or  rental
              agreement in accordance with subdivision  (a)  of  this  section,
              the  one  or  two  year  lease  term  selected  by   the   tenant
              shall commence at the tenant's option, either (1) on the  date  a
              renewal  lease  would  have  commenced   had   a   timely   offer
              been made or (2) on the first rent payment date occurring no less 
              than 120 days after the date that the owner does offer the  lease
              to  the  tenant.   In  either  event,  the  effective   date   of
            









          DOCKET NUMBER:  AK-410406-RO

             the increased rent under the renewal lease shall commence  on  the
             first rent payment date occurring no  less  than  120  days  after
             such  offer  is  made  by  the  owner,  and  the  guidelines  rate
             applicable shall be no greater than the rate in effect on the   
             commencement date of the lease for which  a  timely  offer  should
             have been made.

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

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,  denied  and  that
     the Administrator's order, and the same hereby, is affirmed in  accordance
     with this Order and Opinion. 

     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