Adm. Review Docket No.: BH 910282-RO
                                 STATE OF NEW YORK
                           OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

        APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: BH 910282 RO 
             B. M. B. ASSOCIATES,              RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S 
                                               ORDER NO.: EBF-8-1-0006-E

                                PETITIONER     TENANT: Rosalind Weinman

        On August 28, 1987 the above named petitioner owner filed a Petition 
        for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent Administrator 
        issued July 28, 1987.  The order  concerned  housing  accommodations
        known as Apartment Drake 3F located at 235  Garth  Road,  Scarsdale,
        N.Y.   The  Administrator  terminated  the  tenant's  complaint   of
        improper eviction after finding that the petitioner failed to comply 
        with Section 35 of the Tenant Protection Regulations.

        The Commissioner has reviewed the record  and  carefully  considered
        that portion of the record relevant to  the  issues  raised  by  the

        The tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a complaint  on  June
        9, 1987 in which she alleged that the owner was threatening to evict 
        her as evidenced by  a  letter  from  the  owner  telling  her  that
        pursuant to Item R of the Second Amendment to the Offering Plan, the 
        tenant's lease expiring August 31, 1987 would not be  renewed.   The
        tenant indicated by the complaint that she  took  occupancy  of  the
        subject apartment on September 15, 1974.

        In answer to the complaint, the owner stated that  the  building  in
        question was converted to cooperative ownership  under  an  eviction
        plan on September 1, 1982 and that all non-purchasing  tenants  were
        permitted to remain under ETPA (Emergency Tenant Protection  Act  of
        1974) as tenants for five additional years.  Petitioner alleged that 
        the tenant's complaint was merely a delaying tactic.  A copy of  the
        relevant portion of the Offering Plan was submitted.

        The Administrator, after summarizing the relevant  facts,  made  the
        following findings:

                       "Section 35 (c)(8) of the Regulations which
                  refers to leases for housing accommodations in 
                  cooperative or condominium owned buildings or in a
                  building for which the Attorney General has 
                  accepted for filing an offering plan to convert the

                  building to cooperative or condominium ownership 
                  states that new or renewal leases may contain a
                  clause permitting termination prior to the 
                  expiration of the terms by a subsequent owner who

        Adm. Review Docket No.: BH 910282-RO
                  has purchased the rented apartment, if such clause

                       That the termination clause shall only be 
                  effective for the purpose of permitting the rented
                  apartment, following surrender of possession by the
                  tenant, to be occupied immediately by such owner
                  under the cooperative or condominium building
                  ownership, or by a member of that owner's immediate
                  family as defined in the Tenant Protection 
                  Regulations; and

                  That such owner must serve on the tenant a notice
                  in writing by certified mail no less than 90 days
                  prior to the date of termination of the lease,
                  reciting the date of termination and the full name
                  and address of the owner or the member of the 
                  owner's immediate family who is to take occupancy
                  of the rented apartment, and his or her 
                  relationship to the owner; an exact copy of such
                  notice must also be filed with an affidavit of
                  service with the Division within seven days after
                  such service.

                  Based on the evidence in  the  record,  it  is  determined
             that the landlord has failed to comply with Section 35 (c)
             (8) of the Regulations.

                  Landlord is instructed that no action to evict the 
             Tenant can proceed until the landlord complies with 
             Section 35 (c)(8) of the Regulations.  The tenant need 
             not vacate unless ordered to do so by a court of compet-
             ent jurisdiction."

        The Administrator then terminated the proceeding.

        On appeal the owner argues that the conversion of  the  building  to
        cooperative ownership pursuant to the Section 352-eee of the General 
        Business Law, superceded the tenant's  rights  under  ETPA  and  the
        Tenant Protection Regulations.   The  plan  was  declared  effective
        September 1, 1982 and according to the  owner,  since  the  ETPA  in
        effect at that time permitted a non-purchasing tenant to  remain  in
        the apartment for two years, DHCR had no jurisdiction over this unit 
        as of September 1,  1984.   Petitioner  further  states  that,  even
        assuming arguendo that DHCR retains jurisdiction the Administrator's 
        application of Section 35 of the  Regulations  was  improper.   This
        section deals with leases terminating prior to  expiration  for  the
        purposes of immediate  owner  occupancy,  and  this  tenant's  lease
        expires August 31, 1987.

        Adm. Review Docket No.: BH 910282-RO
        The owner finally argues that the tenant  is  in  violation  of  the
        offering plan and a signed document wherein  the  tenant  agreed  to
        waive her rights in consideration for the right  to  remain  in  the
        apartment for an additional three years.   Petitioner  also  asserts
        that the Administrator's order is invalid because it did not contain 
        an order number.

        The tenant responded to the petition, through  counsel  on  November
        18, 1987.  In that response the tenant stated that she is  63  years
        old and a Social Security Disability recipient.  The  tenant  claims
        an exemption from Section 352-eee of the General Business Law as  an
        "eligible handicapped person."

        After  a  careful  review  of  the  evidence  in  the   record   the
        Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

        The provisions of ETPA are applicable to cooperative apartments (see 
        Thornycraft Tenants Corp. v. Eastchester 148 AD2d 729, 539 NYS2d 467 
        [2nd Dept. 1989]; Central Westchester Tenants Corp. v.  Iagallo  136
        AD2d 53, 526 NYS 2d 113  [2nd  Dept.  1988]).   The  centerpiece  of
        petitioner's argument is that the eviction plan, adopted  under  the
        auspices  of  Section  352-eee  superceded  the  ETPA  statute   and
        regulations issued  thereunder.   Petitioner  is  not  correct.   In
        McVann  v  Myers 131 Misc 2d 167, 497 NYS 2d 819 (City Ct.  Yonkers,
        1985) aff. 525 NYS 2d 750 (2nd Dept. 1987), the petitioner  advanced
        the  identical  argument  before  the  court.   Responding  to  this
        contention the court stated:

                  "Section 352-eee  of  the  General  Business  Law
                  does not have the effect of superceding the  ETPA
                  since Section 5  of  ETPA  does  not  contain  an
                  exception  for  cooperatives  and   condominiums.
                  The only reason  that  Section  352-eeee  of  the
                  General Business Law has the effect of  exempting
                  rental    apartments    in    cooperatives    and
                  condominiums is that Section YY51-3.0(a)  of  the
                  Rent Stabilization Law  applicable  to  New  York
                  City, provides  that  this  law  shall  apply  to
                  Class  A  multiple  dwellings  not  owned  as   a
                  cooperative or condominium, except  as  provided.
                  There is no similar language in  the  ETPA  which
                  incorporated   Section   352-eee,   or    exempts
                  cooperatives and condominiums  from  coverage  as
                  does the Rent Stabilization Law.

                  This  fact,  combined  with  the  knowledge  that
                  neither  the  City  of  Yonkers  nor  Westchester
                  County  has  specifically  exempted  cooperatives
                  from the application of the ETPA, results in  the
                  determination that it  was  not  the  legislative
                  intent   to   protect   cooperatives   from   the
                  application of the ETPA.

        Since the Second Department has affirmed the Yonkers City Court  and
        since the subject apartment lies within the Second  Department,  the
        Court's determination is binding on the case herein.  

        Adm. Review Docket No.: BH 910282-RO
        Petitioner is correct in that Section 35 [now Section  2502.5(c)(8)]
        of the Tenant Protection Regulations is inapplicable to the facts of 
        this case.  This section was  cited  in  the  Administrator's  order
        because it specifies the only  circumstances  in  which  leases  for
        housing accommodations in cooperative or condominium-owner buildings 
        may contain a termination clause.  That section permits a subsequent 
        purchaser of the apartment to utilize a termination clause when  the
        apartment is to be occupied by such owner or by  a  member  of  that
        owner's immediate family.  In the  absence  of  such  a  termination
        clause, the eviction of this tenant is governed by Part 2504 of  the
        Tenant Protection Regulations which specifies  the  restrictions  on
        the removal of a tenant and identifies the permissible  grounds  for
        evictions and none of those grounds are satisfied herein.

        Petitioner's argument that the tenant somehow relinquished her  ETPA
        rights by executing certain documents permitting her  to  remain  in
        the  apartment  is  incorrect.   Pursuant  to  9NYCRR  2500.12,  "An
        agreement by the tenant to waive the benefit of any provision of the 
        Act or these Regulations is void."  The tenant could not  waive  her
        protection from improper eviction.  By reason of the  Commissioner's
        decision  herein,  it  is  unnecessary  to  rule  on  the   tenant's
        arguments  set  forth  in  the  answer   to   the   petition.    The
        Administrator's order is affirmed.

        THEREFORE, pursuant to  the  Emergency  Tenant  Protection  Act  and
        Tenant Protection Regulations, 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,


                                        ELLIOT SANDER
                                        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