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. BG210326RO
: DRO DOCKET NO. ZAC210095RV
KATZ REALTY GROUP
PETITIONER : TENANT: Zunya Pertsis
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND
MODIFYING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On July 29, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on June
24, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street,
Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as
1725 Emmons Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment No. B-4
wherein the Rent Administrator directed the Owner to tender a lease
The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the
provisions of Section 2522.5 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 commenced when the tenant filed a complaint
alleging that the owner had not offered a renewal lease. The tenant
submitted copies of various correspondence from the owner as well as
a notification from the New York City Housing Authority regarding
the tenant's Section 8 eligibility for rent subsidy.
In answer to the complaint, the owner stated that it had
offered a lease in conformity with the requirements of the Rent
Stabilization Law which the tenant had refused because it included
a rent increase for Major Capital Improvements (MCI) that the
Section 8 program would not subsidize as such increase placed the
rent above the fair market value. The owner stated that since it
had never renewed the Section 8 lease, the Section 8 program did not
In the order under review, the Administrator, basing its
findings on the alleged failure of the owner to interpose an answer,
deemed the tenant's allegations admitted and directed the owner to
offer the tenant a renewal lease.
In its appeal, the owner contends that the order should be
reversed for the following reasons: 1) the owner timely responded
to the complaint; 2) the tenant does have a renewal lease; 3) the
owner feels the main issue is the MCI increase the Section 8
program refuses to pay.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
The record contains the owner's response which was timely
submitted. Therefore, that part of the Administrator's order is
changed to eliminate the reference of a failure to respond.
However, pursuant to Code Section 2522.5(g), an owner must
renew on the same terms and conditions as the expired lease. Section
8 assistance does not remove a unit from rent stabilization and
owners must offer a renewal lease on the same terms and conditions,
including acceptance of the Section 8 subsidy. Fishel v. CAB, 123
Misc.2d 841, 474 N.Y.S.2d 908 (Sup. 1984); Tann v. Thompson, 112
Misc.2d 392, 446 N.Y.S.2d 959 (NYC Civ. 1981). Accordingly, the
Rent Administrator did not err in its direction.
The rent to be set in the Section 8 lease, as well as the
amount of the subsidized portion is a contractual matter governed by
Review of registration records discloses that the registration
of the subject premises contains both the legal stabilized rent and
the portion paid directly by the tenant and that the owner has
complied with the order.
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, modified in accordance
with this order and opinion.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA