BL 410306 RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO. BL 410306 RO
10 West 66th Street Corp., DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR
DOCKET NO. L-3110449-R
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 22, 1987, the above-named owner filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on November 17, 1987 by
a District Rent Administrator concerning the housing
accommodation known as Apartment 2-F, 10 West 66th Street,
New York, New York.
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 review.
This proceeding was commenced by the filing of an "Owner's
Failure to Renew Lease" complaint by the tenant, on February 27,
1984, with the New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board
("C.A.B."), the agency formerly charged with enforcement of the
Rent Stabilization Law.
On April 1, 1984 responsibility for the administration of rent
stabilization in New York City was transferred to the New York
State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (D.H.C.R.).
The owner's answer, dated September 28, 1984, asserted that the
subject apartment was not the complainant's primary residence;
that the subject premises were owned by a cooperative
corporation, and that the cooperative had initiated a court
proceeding to recover the subject apartment. The owner also
stated that prior to the commencement of the court proceeding,
the complainant's rent as listed in the prior leases entered into
between the parties, was being calculated on the basis of the
applicable Rent Stabilization Guideline increase.
The tenant's response to the owner's answer, filed on May 5,
1986, stated that the Civil Court case, under Index No. L & T
70274/84, held that the complainant's apartment is subject to
On September 3, 1986, the tenant submitted to D.H.C.R. a copy of
the aforementioned court order (L & T Index No. 70274/84), which
determined that the complainant's apartment was subject to rent
In the order under review herein, the Administrator directed the
BL 410306 RO
owner "to offer the tenant a renewal lease for one or two years
at the tenant's option, within thirty-five days..." from the
issuance date of the Administrator's order.
The owner's petition alleges that the order of the Civil Court,
under Index No. L & T 70274/84, which determined that the
complainant's apartment is subject to rent regulation, is being
appealed to the Appellate Term. The owner asserts that the basis
for the appeal is that the subject apartment is designated as a
maid's room in the subject building's Certificate of Occupancy,
and that the tenant has not maintained the subject apartment as a
primary residence. The owner further asserts that the
complainant filed with the D.H.C.R. a "Statement of Violations -
Harassment" which alleged, among other things, that the owner did
not offer a renewal lease. The owner asserts that the D.H.C.R.'s
Enforcement Unit determined that the owner was not required to
offer the complainant a renewal lease while the civil litigation
To the petition the owner attaches a copy of a "Notice of Appeal"
of the order issued by the Civil Court, under L & T 70274/84,
allegedly filed with the Appellate Term, dated February 19, 1986.
The owner also attaches to the petition an order issued by
D.H.C.R., under Docket No. L-3110967-R, in which the
Administrator determined that a different apartment in the
subject building was not rent regulated.
The tenant's answer to the owner's petition, filed on February
10, 1988, asserts that she commenced occupancy on January 15,
1976, pursuant to two-year lease expiring on January 14, 1978;
that she entered into two three-year renewal leases, from January
15, 1978 to January 14, 1981, and from January 15, 1981 to
January 14, 1984. The tenant points out that the aforementioned
leases were entered into subject to the Rent Stabilization
Guidelines. The tenant further states that the subject apartment
is her primary residence, and that the Enforcement Unit's hearing
in November, 1986, did not decide the issue of lease renewal.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the owner's petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the rent agency mailed to the owner a
letter, dated January 7, 1992, requesting that within twenty days
of the date of the letter, the owner should inform D.H.C.R. of
the status of the appeal of the Civil Court order, under Index
No. L & T 70274/84. The record reflects that the owner has not
responded to the aforementioned letter. Accordingly, the
Commissioner finds that the Administrator's order was proper
based upon the Civil Court's determination that the complainant's
apartment was subject to rent regulation.
The owner's assertion that the subject apartment is not rent
stabilized because it is designated as a maid's room in the
building's Certificate of Occupancy is without merit. Pursuant
to Section 2520.11 (m) of the Rent Stabilization Code "housing
accommodations occupied by domestic servants" are exempt from
rent regulation "for so long as they maintain" that status. As
the record indicates that the subject apartment is no longer used
for housing maids or domestic servants; that both parties in this
BL 410306 RO
proceeding state that the complainant's apartment was subject to
rent regulation from January 15, 1976 through January 14, 1984,
and that the owner does not substantiate its allegation that the
Civil Court order is being appealed, the Commissioner finds that
the Administrator's order should be affirmed.
As to the owner's allegation that the subject apartment is not
the complainant's primary residence, pursuant to Section
2520.11(r) of the Rent Stabilization Code, that issue is to be
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.
As to the Administrator's order, under Docket No. L-3110967-R,
which the owner attaches to its petition, the Commissioner notes
that that proceeding involves a different apartment from the
complainant's apartment, and therefore, the rent agency's
determination of the status of that apartment has no bearing on
D.H.C.R.'s determination in this proceeding. The Commissioner
notes that it is the owner's contention that it was not directed
to offer the tenant a renewal lease, by the Enforcement Unit for
so long as the civil litigation between the parties remained
pending. As the owner has not shown that there are any civil
cases that are still pending that pertain to this proceeding,
the Commissioner finds that the owner's assertion concerning the
Enforcement Unit's determination is moot.
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 Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA