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.: BG110216RT
Mildred Balzano, DRO DOCKET NO.: AC110075RV
TENANT: Mildred Balzano
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 24, 1987, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on June 24, 1987, by a
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as
39-07 208th Street, Bayside, New York, Apartment No. 16, wherein the
Rent Administrator dismissed the tenant's complaint.
The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the provisions
of Section 2526.1 of the Rent Stabilization Code.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator's order was
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 January 15, 1986 by the
filing of a complaint of the owner's failure to issue a renewal lease.
The tenant stated that she had assumed occupancy on January 15, 1975
pursuant to a two year lease at a rent of $245.00 per month. The
complaint further stated that the owner has expressed an intention to
withdraw the subject apartment from the housing market in order to
demolish the building and construct new dwelling units.
In its answer, the owner stated that it had already submitted an
application with the DHCR to withdraw the subject apartment from the
rental market under Docket Number OI011001DI.
In June 24, 1987, the Rent Administrator issued the order appealed
herein which stated that the issue of the tenant's right to a renewal
lease would be resolved upon the issuance of the order under Docket
Number OI011001DI concerning the owner's application to recover the
unit, and that both tenant and owner would be advised of that
On June 20, 1989, a Rent Administrator issued an order under Docket
Number OI011001DI wherein it was determined to grant the owner's
application to recover twenty six occupied units, including the subject
apartment, demolishing them to convert them into thirteen one-family
dwellings, as conditioned upon the owner's compliance with certain
relocation and stipend provisions.
None of the tenants affected by the order, including the complainant in
this proceeding, has appealed the order. The owner's petition of the
order, relating only to the relocation conditions, was denied by the
Commissioner in an opinion issued on June 12, 1990.
The tenant's petition was filed on July 24, 1987, and has not been
amended or supplemented since the issuance of the order granting the
owner's application. In her petition, the tenant contends that the
Administrator's determination was incorrect, and cited another DHCR
order, under Docket Number AB110010RV, which had ordered the same owner
to issue a renewal lease to a tenant in another unit.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
The instant proceeding was commenced when the petitioner-tenant filed a
complaint alleging the owner's failure to issue her a renewal lease.
The administrative order appealed herein dismissed the tenant's
complaint based on the owner's application to withdraw 26 units,
including the complainant's, from the market. The Rent Administrator
was correct in terminating the tenant's proceeding, as the only issue
therein would of necessity be resolved in the order based on the owner's
application. Although the application was still being processed at the
time the tenant filed her petition, the underlying issue of this appeal
has since been resolved by the administrative order granting the owner's
application and the expiration of the designated period for the filing
of an appeal without challenge (the owner's appeal of the order is
unrelated to the lease-renewal issue).
It is further noted that, based on the latest registrations filed by the
owner, it appears that the owner has not acted on the original plan.
Registration information indicates that the complaining tenant has in
fact been issued a renewal lease, but one which terminated on December
31, 1992. If the tenant is still occupying the subject apartment and
has not in fact received a renewal lease, this order and opinion is
issued without prejudice to the tenant's right to file a new complaint
of the owner's failure to offer a renewal lease.
THEREFORE, in accordance with Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that the petition be, and the same hereby is denied, and that
the Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA