Adm. Review Docket No: GL210174RO

                        STATE OF NEW YORK
                           GERTZ PLAZA
                     92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                    JAMAICA, NEW YORK   11433


----------------------------------X  SJR NO.: 7048
APPEAL OF                            DOCKET NO.: GL210174RO
              NICHOLAS NICOLAIDES        
                                               DRO DOCKET NO.: FI210006OE
                                               TENANT: JEAN SHERWOOD


            The above-named petitioner-owner timely filed a Petition for 
            Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on December 4, 
            1992, by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York, 
            concerning housing accommodations known as apartment number 2B at 
            434 61st Street, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Administrator 
            denied the petitioner's application for authorization to commence an 
            action or proceeding to recover possession in a court of competent 
            jurisdiction after the expiration of the existing lease term on the 
            grounds that the petitioner intended to withdraw said housing 
            accommodation from the rental market and use it solely as the 
            residence of a resident superintendent for the subject building.

            Subsequently, the owner filed an Article 78 Proceeding in Supreme 
            Court, New York County, in the nature of an application seeking 
            judicial review of the deemed denial of the instant PAR.
            Thereafter, pursuant to a stipulation, the matter was remanded to 
            the Division for further processing.

            The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
            has carefully considered that portion of the evidence relevant to 
            the issues raised in the administrative appeal.

            The issue in this appeal is whether the petitioner had complied with 
            the procedural pre-requisites for the maintenance of a proceeding of 
            this nature (9NYCRR2524.5 and 9NYCRR2524.2). The Commissioner finds 
            that the petitioner did not meet said pre-requisites.

            The proceeding hereinbelow was commenced in September of 1991 by the 
            filing of the owner's application.

          Adm. Review Docket No: GL210174RO

            After issue had been joined a hearing was held before an 
            Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Thereafter, the ALJ issued her 
            findings and conclusions. Based thereon, the Administrator issued 
            the appealed order.

            In substance, the ALJ found that the tenant's last lease expired on 
            March 31, 1991; that the owner had served a notice of non-renewal of 
            lease by letter dated November 9, 1990 and then filed a holdover 
            proceeding in Civil Court on April 9, 1991. The ALJ further found 
            that the holdover proceeding had been dismissed, on August 23, 1991, 
            on tenant's motion and on the ground that under the Rent 
            Stabilization Code authorization for leave to recover possession in 
            a case like this had to come from DHCR. The ALJ further found 
            (citing Cacaj v. Levine, N.Y.L.J. July 3, 1991, p. 25, cols. 4 & 5 
            [Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County])  that the 
            owner herein could not properly file his application with the DHCR, 
            after the Court had dismissed his holdover proceeding, without first 
            serving a new termination Notice on the tenant in accordance with 
            9NYCRR2524.2 and that since the lease had already expired when the 
            holdover proceeding had been dismissed, a second termination Notice 
            could not have been timely served before the DHCR proceeding was 
            commenced. Based thereon, the ALJ recommended that the application 
            be denied and the owner be directed to offer the tenant an 
            appropriate renewal lease.

            In the appealed order, the Administrator denied the owner's 
            application and terminated the proceeding below based on the owner's 
            failure to serve a second Notice of Non-Renewal of Lease; noting 
            that [as the lease had expired when the Court dismissed the holdover 
            proceeding] the owner could no longer serve such a notice timely as 
            such notice would have to have been filed not more than 150 days nor 
            less than 120 days before the expiration of the current lease.  

            In the PAR, the owner argues, in substance, that the dismissal of 
            the holdover proceeding by the Civil Court was , by its nature, 
            without prejudice; the prior notice to the tenant was effective to 
            meet the pre-requisite notice requirements for the DHCR proceeding; 
            and, therefore, the Administrator erred in requiring a second 

            In the tenant's answer to the PAR, the tenant argues, in substance, 
            that the order below should be affirmed and cites the additional 
            ground based on the tenant's allegation that other suitable 
            apartments have become available for the superintendent's use after 
            the issuance of the Administrator's order.

            The Commissioner is of the opinion that this PAR should be denied.  

            The Commissioner finds that the overwhelming weight of judicial 
            authority indicates that where the giving of a notice prior to the 
            commencement of an action or proceeding to recover possession of a 
            residential housing accommodation is required, if the first such 
            action or proceeding is terminated without prejudice to the 
            commencement of a subsequent one, before the second action or 
            proceeding may be brought, a second prior notice must be given to 
            the tenant. The Commissioner sees no distinction in this regard 
            between a proceeding brought in Court under 9NYCRR2524.4 (Cacaj v. 
            Levine, supra); under 9NYCRR2204.3 (Kaycee West 113th Street Corp. 

          Adm. Review Docket No: GL210174RO

            v. Diakoff, 160 AD2d 573, 554 N.Y.S.2d 216 [1st Dept. 1990], 
            Weinberger v. Driscoll, 89 Misc.2d 675, 392 N.Y.S.2d 236 [Civil 
            Court of the City of New York, New York County, 1977]; or under 
            Section 2232-a of the Real Property Law  Haberman v. Wager 73 Misc. 
            2d 732, 342 N.Y.S.2d 405 [Civil Court of the City of New York, New 
            York County, 1973]); and a proceeding like the instant one, brought 
            under 9NYCRR2524.5, before the DHCR. Therefore, the Commissioner 
            finds that the Administrator properly denied the owner's 

            Further, the Commissioner finds that there is an additional ground 
            upon which the Administrator might have denied the owner's 
            application. The original notice did not comply with 9NYCRR2524.5 or 
            9NYCRR2524.2 in that it did not  set forth the facts upon which the 
            owner's application was based. At the hearing, the owner submitted 
            evidence to attempt to prove that he needed this specific apartment, 
            a second floor apartment, (as opposed to any other apartment in the 
            building: including any of the first floor apartments) because the 
            man whom he had chosen as the superintendent lives with his wife and 
            three grown sons and needs a separate bedroom for each son. The 
            letter of November 9, 1990, was, therefore, inadequate as it merely 
            stated the legal theory under which the landlord intended to proceed 
            and did not inform the tenant of any of the relevant facts the owner 
            intended to attempt to prove in order to support his claim of a 
            right to regain possession of this specific apartment. Kaycee West 
            113th Street Corp. v. Diakoff, supra. 

            THEREFORE, pursuant to all of the applicable statutes and 
            regulations, it is

            ORDERED, that this 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
                                            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