Adm. Rev. Docket No.: GJ910170RO

                                    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 6849                      
          APPEAL OF                           
                                               ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW         
                                               DOCKET NOS.: GJ910170RO  
             SEPEHR GRANFAR
                                               DRO DOCKET NO.: GG910011RK
                                                      (GA910005E)    
                                                     
                                PETITIONER     TENANT: GEORGE F. DUFF    
          ----------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW     
                        AND MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER  

          The above-named petitioner-landlord timely filed a Petition for 
          Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on September 
          11, 1992, by the Rent Administrator at 55 Church Street, White 
          Plains, New York concerning housing accommodations known as 
          Apartment A-3B at 600-A Pelham Road, New Rochelle, New York, 
          wherein the Administrator affirmed his previous order of  June 10, 
          1992 wherein he had terminated the proceeding brought on by the 
          tenant's complaint as to an attempt by the petitioner-landlord to 
          unlawfully evict the tenant.

          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 notes that upon the filing of this one PAR, 
          inadvertently, two Dockets were opened: GJ910170RO and GJ920232RT. 
          The Commissioner further notes that this clerical error was further 
          compounded by the erroneous voiding of Docket Number GJ910170RO 
          (which is the correct Docket Number for a PAR filed by an owner, or  
          landlord) instead of GJ920232RT. Lastly, the Commissioner advises 
          all interested parties that these clerical errors were rectified 
          prior to the issuance of this order and opinion by the closing of 
          Docket Number GJ920232RT and the reopening of GJ910170RO.
          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the evidence relevant to 












          Adm. Rev. Docket No.: GJ910170RO

          the issues raised in the administrative appeal.

          The issue in this proceeding is whether the landlord must follow 
          the established procedures of the DHCR in order to obtain the 
          relief he seeks. 

          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 is a cooperatively 
          owned building, that he owns the shares of stock  allocated to this 
          apartment, that the tenant is a nonpurchasing tenant, that the plan 
          under which the subject building had been converted to cooperative 
          ownership was an eviction plan and that all of the prerequisites 
          provided for in the ETPA, the TPR and the General Business Law to 
          entitle him to obtain possession of the apartment for the use of 
          his son have been met. 

          On June 10, 1992, the Administrator issued an order wherein, in 
          substance, he noted that the landlord had not filed an Application 
          For Order Granting Approval To Refuse Renewal of Lease and To 
          Proceed For Eviction (Form RA-54); advised the landlord that no 
          eviction may proceed in court unless and until the DHCR has issued 
          an order permitting such action; noted that the tenant's present 
          status is what was relevant to a proceeding brought to obtain 
          possession under Section 54, advised the tenant that he need not 
          vacate unless and until required to do so by a court order and 
          terminated the proceeding below.

          Thereafter, the landlord requested the Administrator to reconsider 
          the June 10, 1992 order. That request was granted and on June 19, 
          1992 a Notice of Commencement of Proceeding to Modify or Revoke 
          Order was issued re-opening the proceeding below.

          Subsequently, the appealed order was issued. It affirmed the 
          original, June 10, 1992, order.

          In his appeal, the landlord argues, in substance, that the law does 
          not require him to do anything further to obtain possession of the 
          subject apartment. The landlord also argues, among other points, 
          that the tenant's status as a senior citizen and/or a disabled 
          person must be deemed fixed in accordance solely with Section 
          352eee of the General Business Law and with reference to the time 
          the cooperative plan became effective; that the fact that the 
          tenant may be a senior citizen or disabled person now, under the 
          TPR, is irrelevant.
          The tenant opposes the PAR on various grounds.

          The Commissioner finds that this PAR may be determined solely on 
          procedural grounds. The only matter before the Administrator was 






          Adm. Rev. Docket No.: GJ910170RO

          the tenant's complaint. That matter was disposed of in an order 
          which did very little more than advise the parties that there has 
          been no determination of the landlord's claim to possession because 
          the landlord had not commenced a proceeding seeking a determination 
          as to that claim. The rest of the appealed order, with one 
          exception, merely advised the parties that absent such a 
          determination, the status quo would obtain. That exception is the 
          portion of the Administrator's order which reads as follows: "The 
          owner is further advised that it is the tenant's status now which 
          is relevant to any proceeding under Section 54 of the Regulations."

          The Commissioner finds that the insertion of that last quoted 
          sentence in the June 10, 1992 order was an error because it 
          addressed an issue which was not then before the Administrator. 
          Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the appealed order, which 
          affirmed the June 10, 1992 order, should be modified by the 
          deletion of the above quoted sentence from the affirmed June 10, 
          1992 order. 

          At the risk of being redundant and to insure clarity, 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; and that nothing in this order and opinion or in the 
          appealed order (as modified herein) should be construed as 
          containing any determination as to the merits of such a proceeding, 
          should the landlord commence one. 

          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 modified 
          as indicated hereinabove; and it is further 

          ORDERED, that in all other respects, the Administrator's order be 
          and the same hereby is affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                          
                                        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