EL 210009 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     S.J.R. 5395
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL 
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  EL 210009 RO

              68 PATCHEN REALTY CORPORATION,
                                                  DRO DOCKET NO.: EB 210007 OE

                                  PETITIONER
          ----------------------------------X                                   


                  ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL


          On December 3, 1990 the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  an
          Administrative Appeal against an  order  issued  on  October  29,
          1990 by the District Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, 
          Jamaica New York, concerning the housing accommodations known  as
          68 Patchen Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, Various Apartments.

          Subsequent thereto,  the  petitioner  filed  a  petition  in  the
          Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of the  Civil  Practice  Law
          and Rules requesting that the Court direct the Division to  issue
          a determination of its administrative appeal.

          On September 11, 1991, an order  was  signed  by  Justice  Julius
          Vinik directing the Division to expeditiously render  a  decision
          on the administrative appeal.

          A review of the record indicates that on February  6,  1990,  the
          owner filed applications for Orders Granting Approval  to  Refuse
          Renewal of Lease and/or to Proceed for  Eviction  concerning  the
          one controlled and seven stabilized  apartments  in  the  subject
          premises.   The  owner  claimed  therein  that   he   planned   a
          "substantial alteration" of the building, converting it  from  an
          eight-family dwelling to one containing sixteen Class A  dwelling
          units; that such conversion would entail the complete replacement 
          of plumbing, heating and electrical systems, walls, floors, roof, 
          staircases, etc; that seven of the eight  apartments  are  under-
          occupied; that the major alteration  contemplated  requires  that
          the premises be vacant;  and  that  the  estimated  cost  of  the
          intended alteration was $350,000.00.

          On March 30, 1990, the Division  mailed  copies  of  the  owner's
          applications to the affected tenants,  three  of  whom  submitted
          responses.  All three stated that they were long-term tenants and 
          that they opposed the owner's application.  No further processing 
          was performed.

          On October 29, 1990, the District Rent Administrator  issued  the
          orders appealed herein.  The District Rent Administrator's orders 






          EL 210009 RO
          denied the owner's applications.

          These orders  were  based  upon  a  finding  that  there  are  no
          provisions under the Rent and Eviction Regulations  or  the  Rent
          Stabilization Code which provide for the  relief  sought  by  the
          owner based on the facts set forth by the owner  in  the  subject
          applications.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner alleges, in substance,  that  the
          Division's forms used by the  owner  in  making  its  application
          provide for the purpose stated hereinabove and merely require the 
          applicant to check off the relevant provisions; that  in  denying
          the application, the District Rent Administrator  determined,  in
          essence, that there is no statutory authority  for  granting  the
          relief sought; that the District Rent Administrator erred on  the
          facts and law and the decision was arbitrary and capricious;  and
          that there is statutory authority authorizing the relief sought.

          After a careful consideration of the entire  evidence  of  record
          the Commissioner is of the opinion that the proceeding should  be
          remanded  to  the  District  Rent   Administrator   for   further
          consideration.

          The Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  District  Rent
          Administrator erred in determining on the basis  of  the  record,
          which consisted almost  entirely  of  the  owner's  initial  form
          application, that there was no authority under the  rent  control
          regulations and rent stabilization code which  provides  for  the
          relief sought by the owner herein. 9  NYCRR  2204.7  for  example
          provides for a certificate of eviction, or an  order  authorizing
          subdivision, under certain circumstances, where the alteration or 
          remodeling is for the purpose of  subdividing  an  under-occupied
          rent-controlled apartment containing six or more rooms, exclusive 
          of  bathrooms  and  kitchen.   9  NYCRR  2524.5   provides   that
          demolition,  under  certain  circumstances,  may  be   a   ground
          requiring the Division's approval for refusal to renew the  lease
          of a rent-stabilized tenant.



          It is not possible  to  ascertain  from  the  record,  as  it  is
          currently comprised, whether or not the owner qualifies  for  the
          relief sought.  Further fact-finding is required and  it  is  the
          opinion of  the  Commissioner  that  this  proceeding  should  be
          remanded to the District Rent Administrator to afford  the  owner
          an opportunity to submit  further  information  and  evidence  in
          support of its application.  The tenants should also be  afforded
          an opportunity to  reply  with  their  comments  or  evidence  in
          rebuttal thereto.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and  Eviction  Regulations
          for New York City and the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same  hereby
          is, granted to the extent of remanding  this  proceeding  to  the
          District Rent Administrator for further processing in  accordance
          with this order and opinion.  The orders  of  the  District  Rent
          Administrator remain in full force and effect  until  new  orders
          are issued upon remand.






          EL 210009 RO



          ISSUED:
                                                  ------------------------
                                                  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