BL 410306 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. BL 410306 RO
                                                           
               10 West 66th Street Corp.,      DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR
                                               DOCKET NO. L-3110449-R
           
                                   PETITIONER               
          -----------------------------------X

            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
          rent regulation.

          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
          regulation.

          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
          remained pending.

          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
          is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:

           
                                                       JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                       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