GE110035RO
                                  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    SJR6659
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :    ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                DOCKET NO.GE110035RO
                                              :    DRO DOCKET NO.
             Daleglen Manor Co.                              FK110033RV
                                                   TENANT: Anthony & Isabel
                               PETITIONER     :            Ciotha
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On May 5, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition 
          for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on  April
          10, 1992 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street Jamaica 
          New York concerning the housing accommodation known as 79-11 146th 
          Street,  Flushing,  New  York,  Basement  apartment  wherein  the
          Administrator directed the owner to offer the tenant a lease.

          Subsequent thereto, the owner filed a petition pursuant to Article 
          78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules in the Supreme Court, Queens 
          County where the court ordered that a determination of the owner's 
          PAR be expeditiously rendered.

          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 in this appeal.

          This proceeding was commenced on November 8, 1991 when the tenant 
          filed a complaint alleging that the owner refused  to  provide  a
          lease.

          In  answer  to  the  complaint,  the  owner  asserted  that   the
          complainants were  not  tenants  but  had  occupied  the  subject
          apartment as the building superintendent.  When terminated,  they
          had been granted the opportunity to remain in use and occupancy of 
          the apartment which had never been a rental unit.

          In reply, the tenants asserted that the apartment had been rented 
          to them for $850.00 and that the owner had agreed to a  two  year
          tenancy but refused to give them a lease.  As proof of the rental 
          agreement, the tenants submitted two cancelled rent  checks  with
          their reply.
















          GE110035RO


          In the order here under review, the  Administrator  directed  the
          owner to provide the tenants with a lease.

          In its appeal, the owner contends that the Administrator's  order
          should be reversed because the complainants  are  licensees,  not
          tenants and are not entitled  to  a  lease.   The  owner  further
          contends  that  the  order  is  in  error  in  finding  that  the
          complainants paid rent instead of use and occupancy; the apartment 
          at issue, having always been for the superintendent's use and not 
          a rental unit, was exempt; there was no intent,  either  oral  or
          written to establish a landlord-tenant relationship.  The owner had 
          taken appropriate steps to evict the complainants, who had stopped 
          paying use and occupancy,  before  the  issuance  of  the  order.
          Jurisdiction is with the court to determine whether the owner was 
          entitled to evict the complainants.

          In answer to the appeal, the tenants contend that they  had  paid
          rent pursuant to agreement with the  owner  but  that  the  owner
          refused payment and commenced a retaliatory  holdover  proceeding
          after they requested a lease and initiated the instant proceeding.

          During the processing of this appeal, a hearing pursuant to Section 
          2520.11 of the Rent Stabilization  Code  was  held  to  determine
          whether the complainants' occupancy of the subject  apartment  is
          protected by the Rent Stabilization Law and Code.

          Based upon the evidence adduced during the course of the  hearing
          held on five dates between January 26, 1993 and April 19, 1993, it 
          was determined by the Administrative Law Judge who presided at the 
          hearing that the owner had no intention of creating a tenancy but 
          had permitted the complainants to remain in the accommodation only 
          until they could relocate.

          Accordingly, based on the entire evidence of record including the 
          hearing the Commissioner finds the DHCR does not have jurisdiction 
          over the unit which remains an exempt superintendent's  apartment
          and the complainant's application for a lease should be denied.

          The Commissioner notes, parenthetically, that possession  of  the
          subject premises was awarded to the owner upon the default of the 
          complainants in the proceeding in Housing Court.

          THEREFORE,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the   Rent
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is













          GE110035RO






          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted and 
          that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same  hereby  is,
          revoked.




          ISSUED:

           
                                                       JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                       Deputy Commissioner