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.:BH 410022-RT
                                          :  
         CHARLES BERENDZEN                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                             DOCKET NO.:L 3110445-R
                            PETITIONER    :             (CDR 7,201 as amended)
      ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

      On August 4, 1987 the above-named tenant filed a petition for 
      administrative review of an order issued on July 1, 1987 by a District Rent 
      Administrator concerning the housing accommodation known as 252 East 61st 
      Street, Apartment 2GN, New York, New York wherein the Rent Administrator 
      determined that the owner had not overcharged the tenant.

      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 petition for administrative review.

      The tenant originally commenced this proceeding by filing a complaint of 
      rent overcharge alleging that the owner had unlawfully collected a rent 
      that exceeded the stabilized guidelines based on his partial commercial use 
      of the apartment.  The owner answered that the complainant's tenancy was 
      not subject to the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) based on his commercial use 
      of the apartment.

      In Order Number CDR 7,201, the Administrator determined that the 
      complainant's tenancy was subject to the RSL and that the owner had 
      overcharged the tenant.  The Administrator also ordered the owner to offer 
      a renewal lease to the tenant.

      Subsequently, the owner filed a petition for administrative review of the 
      above order.  Under Docket No. ARL 08608-L, the Commissioner remanded this 
      proceeding for further processing.

      In the order here under review, the Administrator determined that the 
      subject apartment was subject to the RSL but that no overcharges occurred.  
      The Administrator determined that the subject apartment had received an 
      exemption from rent control based on its mixed residential and commercial 
      use.  Based on the Matter of Zeitlin v. CAB, 46 N.Y. 2d 992 416 N.Y.S. 2d 
      233 (1979), the Administrator found that the subject unit became subject to 
      the RSL on July 1, 1974 at the rent in effect on June 30, 1974 and not in 
      1969 at the rent in effect on May 31, 1968.  Because the overcharge found 
      in the original order was based solely on a rent increase in 1971, the 
      Administrator determined that no overcharge occurred.

      In his petition for administrative review, the tenant failed to state any 
      objections to the Administrator's order.








          DOCKET NUMBER: BH 410022-RT
      Subsequently, the Commissioner afforded the tenant a second opportunity to 
      state his objection to the Administrator's order.  In the subsequent 
      submission the tenant stated that the Administrator incorrectly interpreted 
      the applicable case law.  The remainder of the tenant's submission states 
      a variety of grievances against the owner and includes a number of exhibits 
      which allegedly demonstrate unfair treatment by the owner.  Many of the 
      submissions refer to the original Administrator's order and not the 
      Administrator's amended order here under review.

      After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that this 
      petiton should be denied.

      The determinative case is Zeitlin.  The Commissioner finds that the 
      Administrator correctly applied the case to the facts in this proceeding.  
      The subject apartment received an exemption from rent control based on 
      mixed residential and commercial use.  The apartment became subject to the 
      Rent Stabilization Law on July 1, 1974.  The rent being charged to the 
      petitioner on June 30, 1974 was not challengeable by the tenant.

      The remainder of the tenant's pleading cites no errors of law or fact made 
      by the Administrator in the amended order here under review.

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

      ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and the same 
      hereby is, denied, and that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the 
      same hereby is, affirmed.

      ISSUED:










                                                                    
                                           JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                       Acting Deputy Commissioner