STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: BC 410310 RO 
                                                 DRO DOCKET NO.:
             THE    DELMONICO    HOTEL-OWNER,          :     ZL    001145-RV
                                                 Allyn Ehrlich-Tenant
                                PETITIONER    : 


               On March 23, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review  against  an  order  issued  on
          February 23, 1987 by the  Rent  Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall
          Street, Jamaica, New York concerning  the  housing  accommodations
          known as Apartment No. 400, 502 Park Avenue, New York,  New  York,
          wherein the Administrator determined that the tenant was  entitled
          to the protection of the Rent Stabilization Law and Amended  Hotel
          Code and directed the owner to register the subject unit.  

               The Commissioner has reviewed all  of  the  evidence  in  the
          record and has carefully considered that  portion  of  the  record
          relevant to the issue raised by the administrative appeal.  

               This proceeding was originally commenced on July 31, 1984  by
          the filing of a tenant's complaint of  owner's  failure  to  renew
          lease.  The tenant  stated  he  had  commenced  occupancy  of  the
          subject apartment in June 1976 pursuant to  an  eight  year  lease
          expiring June 30, 1984 which the owner refused to renew.  

               A copy of the tenant's complaint was served on the owner. 

               The owner responded, stating that the space occupied  by  the
          tenant was commercial space and  was  rented  to  the  tenant  for
          commercial purposes only, and as such  was  not  subject  to  Rent

               On January 17, 1986, the  owner  reiterated  its  answer  and
          submitted copies of  the  tenant's  lease  and  a  certificate  of
          occupancy dated June 1978 which limited the  use  of  the  subject
          floor to business purposes.

               In reply, the tenant stated that he had occupied the subject
          apartment on a combined business and  residential  basis  for  ten

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BC 410310 RO
          years with the knowledge  and  consent  of  both  the  former  and
          present owners; the building manager was a frequent visitor to the 
          apartment.   The  tenant  challenged  the  1978   certificate   of
          occupancy as stating the owner's desired use  but  not  reflecting
          the actual usage.  The tenant asserts that at  the  time  he  took
          occupancy of the subject apartment, the  four  lower  floors  were
          being used residentially;  the  certificate  of  occupancy,  which
          postdates his occupancy, represents the owner's desire to  convert
          the four lower floors to commercial  usage.   The  tenant  further
          stated that the owner had acknowledged the  residential  usage  of
          the subject premises in a writing dated April 5, 1983 in which the 
          owner referred to the premises as  "apartment  400".   The  tenant
          submitted a floor plan of the subject  apartment  which  indicates
          that the bathroom has  a  bathtub,  an  accouterment  not  usually
          found on commercial premises.    

               To further substantiate his  residential  usage,  the  tenant
          asserted that the owner had provided maid and linen service  on  a
          continual basis.  The tenant submitted copies of income tax forms, 
          automobile registration, and voter registration card all of  which
          indicated the premises as his residence.

               A check of the Division's records revealed that  the  subject
          building is a residential hotel subject to the Rent  Stabilization
          Law and the Amended Hotel Code.

               A physical inspection to determine whether the usage  of  the
          subject premises was commercial or residential was conducted by  a
          staff member of the DHCR on May 20, 1986.  The inspector  reported
          that there was evidence of both residential and commercial  usage;
          there was a combined living room/bedroom; the kitchen was  stocked
          with food; a closet had clothing in it; and a room at the entrance 
          to the premises was equipped for business purposes.   

               In the order here under review, the Administrator  determined
          that the tenant is a permanent hotel tenant and  entitled  to  the
          protection of the Rent Stabilization Law  and  the  Amended  Hotel
          Code.  The owner was  directed  to  register  the  unit  with  the
          Division in accord with Chapter 403, Laws of 1983. 

               In seeking reversal of the Administrator's order,  the  owner
          contends that the tenant had entered into an  office  lease  which
          did not permit him to  reside  on  the  premises.   Moreover,  the
          current owner never agreed to  residential  use  and  the  owner's
          records do not show that the former owner ever consented  to  such
          use.  Furthermore,  the  Certificate  of  Occupancy  provides  for
          commercial space. 

               In  opposition  to  the  appeal,  the  tenant  reiterates  in
          substance the answer made to the Administrator. 

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

               The Rent Stabilization Law  applies  to  units  occupied  for
          combined residential and commercial purposes as well as  to  units

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BC 410310 RO
          occupied solely for residential usage.  Accordingly, the fact that 
          the tenant signed a commercial lease or that  the  Certificate  of
          occupancy limits the use to business purposes is not  relevant  in
          this proceeding when said provisions have been waived by actual or 
          implied permission to utilize the hotel apartment for  residential
          purposes.  Based upon the evidence submitted  by  the  tenant  and
          the physical inspection conducted on May 20, 1986, the 
          Commissioner finds that the Administrator was correct in its 
          determination and properly directed  the  owner  to  register  the
          subject premises. 

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

               ORDERED, that this petition  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
          denied, and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
          is, affirmed. 


                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          Deputy Commissioner


          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BC 410310 RO


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