Adm. Rev. Docket No.: GH920214RO

                                    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
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE  SJR 6819                      
          APPEAL OF                           
                                               ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW         
                                               DOCKET NOS.: GH920214RO  
             STEPHEN P. GLENNON
                                               DRO DOCKET NO.: GE910004OE
                                                                     
                                                     
                                PETITIONER     TENANT: C. STEPHEN SCHMITT
          ----------------------------------X


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW     



          The above-named petitioner-landlord timely filed a Petition for 
          Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on July 17, 
          1992, by the Rent Administrator at 55 Church Street, White Plains, 
          New York concerning housing accommodations known as Apartment 3A at 
          14 N. Chatsworth Avenue, Larchmont (the Commissioner notes here 
          that the mailing address for this apartment is, apparently, 
          "Larchmont", but that the apartment is located within the Town of 
          Mamaroneck), New York, wherein the Administrator determined that 
          the tenant was protected under the ETPA.


          Subsequently, the landlord filed a Petition in the Supreme Court, 
          Westchester County, under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice 
          Law and Rules, in the nature of an application seeking judicial 
          review of the deemed denial of the landlord's PAR. Thereafter, 
          pursuant to a Stipulation entered into between the Division and the 
          landlord, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner.


          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 proceeding is whether, under circumstances 
          wherein the landlord knew or should have known the identity of the 
          occupant of an apartment, a landlord can claim that an occupant 












          Adm. Rev. Docket No.: GH920214RO

          from whom the landlord has accepted rent for over three years is 
          not the legal tenant of the subject apartment and, therefore, is 
          not subject to the protections afforded tenant's under the ETPA?


          The proceeding below was commenced by the tenant's complaint.


          The tenant claimed, in substance, that the landlord was attempting 
          to evict the tenant contrary to applicable law.


          The landlord responded, in substance, that this tenant is  not the 
          lawful tenant under the ETPA and the regulations promulgated 
          thereunder.


          In the appealed order, the Administrator found that since the 
          record showed that the tenant had paid the rent for the subject 
          apartment in his own name since as early as 1987, the landlord had 
          long since waived any objection he may have had to the tenant's 
          occupancy and, therefore, the tenant is entitled to the protections 
          afforded under the ETPA.


          In his PAR the landlord, in substance, repeats the arguments he 
          offered below.


          In his answer opposing the PAR, the tenant, in substance, reasserts 
          his entitlement to the protections afforded by the ETPA.


          The Commissioner finds that the Administrator's order should be 
          affirmed.


          The Commissioner notes that in the PAR the landlord alleges that he 
          bought the subject condominium apartment in July of 1986 in the 
          name of Jobs Lane Partners, as to which the landlord explains 
          "There was initially intended to be a partner, however, that 
          partner never actually participated and I took over the full 
          ownership in 1987." 


          The Commissioner further notes that the record shows that on or 
          about May 18, 1989, the landlord wrote to the tenant, at the 
          subject apartment, advising the tenant that Jobs Lane Partners had 
          been dissolved effective June 1, 1989 and requesting that all 
          future rent checks be made payable to the landlord and sent to the 
          landlord at his address in Connecticut.







          Adm. Rev. Docket No.: GH920214RO


          The Commissioner points out that this order and opinion is issued 
          without prejudice to the landlord's right to commence a proceeding 
          (following the established DHCR procedures and utilizing the 
          prescribed DHCR forms) to determine his claim of right to 
          possession for his own use. In that connection, the landlord is 
          reminded that if one seeks relief under the ETPA and the applicable 
          regulations, one may be well advised to comply
          with the same, especially those relating to the registration 
          requirements for ETPA regulated apartments. 


          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.

          ISSUED:




                                                                          
                                        JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                        Deputy Commissioner