ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. HJ420127RO, ETC.
                                  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. NO. 7356
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS. HJ420127RO, 
                                                              HJ420142RO, and
                                                              HJ420143RO    
                                        
                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                              NEW SCHOOL FOR      NOS. DJ420010OE, 
                              SOCIAL RESEARCH,         DJ420011OE, and
                                   PETITIONER          DJ420013OE
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               On October 22, 1993, the above-named landlord filed petitions 
          for administrative review of orders issued on September 17, 1993 by 
          a Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          Apartments 2, 4 and 5, respectively, at 68 Fifth Avenue, New York, 
          New York.

               Subsequently, and after more than ninety days had elapsed from 
          the time it filed its petitions for administrative review, the 
          landlord deems its petitions as having been denied, and sought 
          judicial review in the Supreme Court of the State of New York 
          pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

               After considering the Article 78 petition, the Court issued an 
          order remitting the proceeding to the New York State Division of 
          Housing and Community Renewal (D.H.C.R.) for further consideration.

               The Commissioner notes that the aforementioned petitions for 
          administrative review involve common issues of law and fact.  The 
          Commissioner is accordingly of the opinion that they should be 
          consolidated for disposition.

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



















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. HJ420127RO, ETC.

               On October 20, 1989, the subject landlord filed three separate 
          applications with the D.H.C.R. for an order granting the landlord 
          the right to proceed for an eviction of the subject tenants.  The 
          landlord bases its application on its alleged intent to withdraw 
          the subject housing accommodations from the rental market.

               To its applications the landlord attached, among other things, 
          an affidavit prepared by the landlord's Vice President for 
          Administration and Finance which stated that "it is our intention 
          to permanently withdraw the entire building from the rental market 
          for the purposes of using it for educational and related 
          administrative use."

               The Administrator requested that the Hearing Bureau of the 
          D.H.C.R. conduct a hearing to determine the merits of the 
          landlord's applications.

               Hearings were held on several dates throughout 1992, wherein 
          the subject tenants and landlord were represented.  The 
          Administrative Law Judge made, among other things, the following 
          determinations:

                    1. That the landlord seeks Certificates of
                       Eviction so that it can withdraw three
                       separate rent controlled housing
                       accommodations from the rental market 
                       so that they can be used for educational
                       and administrative purposes, pursuant to
                       Section 2204.9(a)(3) of the City Rent and
                       Eviction Regulations;

                    2. That the subject landlord, The New School
                       for Social Research, is "found to be a
                       university operated exclusively for its
                       educational purposes, on a not-for-profit
                       basis";

                    3. That the subject landlord intends to 
                       withdraw the subject apartments from 
                       the housing and non-housing markets,
                       and that the landlord has made a 
                       decision to put the housing accommodations
                       "to some school-related use"; 

                    4. That the landlord credibly testified that
                       it will not use the subject apartments for
                       the occupancy of employees, students and
                       staff;


                    5. That the Department of Buildings had approved
                       the landlord's architectural plans for the






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. HJ420127RO, ETC.

                       proposed renovations of the subject apartments;

                    6. That the subject landlord has sufficient funding
                       to complete the proposed renovations;

                    7. That the subject landlord had previously recovered
                       two residential units in the subject building, 
                       formerly Apartments 3 and 7, and that they both
                       have been converted into offices;

                    8. That the former Apartment 3, in the subject
                       building, was used as an office by a professor
                       until his death in March, 1991;

                    9. That one of the landlord's representatives 
                       testified that the above-mentioned office 
                       "had not been used, except by an executrix,"
                       since the aforementioned professor's death;

                   10. That a former part of Apartment 3, now called
                       Room 3A, was created in 1991 and is used by a 
                       school faculty advisor for two or three hours
                       a week;

                   11. That the former Apartment 7 is used by three
                       college personnel, one uses it for one hour
                       each week, and the other two use the office
                       for less than two hours weekly; 

                   12. That the available offices in the subject 
                       building are "underutilized"; 

                   13. That, although the approved architectural
                       plans designated the intended use of the 
                       subject apartments as "office," the subject
                       landlord "never identified specifically,
                       how it planned to use the subject apartments";

                   14. That the subject landlord owns several premises
                       which contain vacant offices, and which are
                       "geographically close" to the subject building;

                   15. That a representative of the subject landlord 
                       testified that the school does not have a 
                       process through which it can identify vacant
                       space;


                   16. That the subject landlord has not explained
                       "the nonuse or underutilization of available
                       space in close proximity to the units sought";













          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. HJ420127RO, ETC.

                   17. That, pursuant to the applicable rent 
                       regulations, the subject landlord must
                       establish that it requires the subject
                       apartments "for its own immediate use
                       in connection with its educational 
                       purposes"; 

                   18. That, based on the record, the subject
                       landlord has not established, by
                       substantial evidence, that it requires
                       the subject apartments "for its own
                       immediate use in connection with its
                       educational purposes," and 

                   19. That, based on the aforementioned findings,
                       the subject landlord's applications for 
                       Certificates of Eviction should be denied.

               In the orders under review herein, the Administrator "adopted" 
          the Administrative Law Judge's findings and recommendations, and 
          that the Administrator denied the landlord's applications for 
          Certificates of Eviction.

               In its petitions for administrative review the landlord 
          asserts, among other things, that the Administrative Law Judge 
          (ALJ) improperly required the landlord to show that it has an 
          "immediate need for the Apartments"; that, the landlord states 
          that:  "By requiring a showing of need, the ALJ contravened well- 
          established case law that a not-for-profit educational institution, 
          such as the New School, need only show that it intends to use the 
          premises in connection with its educational facilities"; that the 
          ALJ made a finding that the landlord intends in good faith to use 
          the subject apartments for educational purposes; that the ALJ's 
          findings "of good faith and intent to use the Apartments for 
          educational purposes were more than sufficient to support the 
          granting of the certificates of eviction"; that in seeking a 
          Certificate of Eviction, pursuant to Section 2204.9(a)(3) of the 
          City Rent and Eviction Regulations, a charitable organization "is 
          not required to justify its proposed use, or averred need, as a 
          prerequisite to obtaining such a certificate"; that, the landlord 
          states, "By requiring the New School to demonstrate and justify its 
          plans for immediate use of the Apartments, the ALJ misapplied the 
          legal standard and his decision should accordingly, be reversed,"  



          and that to support its aforementioned allegations the landlord 
          cites the following New York court cases:  Village Tenth Co. V. 
          Walsh, 40 A.D.2d 969, 338 N.Y.S. 2d 671 (1972); Application of 
          Wade, 29 Misc. 2d 112, 210 N.Y.S.2d 163 (1960); Engle V. Weaver 11 
          Misc. 2d 459, 174 N.Y.S.2d 564 (1958);  Hughes V. Weaver, 11    
          Misc. 2d 821, 178 N.Y.S. 2d 440 (1957); Application of Asco 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. HJ420127RO, ETC.

          Equities, Inc. V. McGoldrick, 285 A.D. 381, 137 N.Y.S.2d 446 
          (1955). 

               In the tenants' response they assert, among other things, that 
          as the applicable rent regulations contain the words "immediate 
          use," the ALJ properly made a finding as to whether the landlord 
          requires the subject apartments for its "immediate use"; that the 
          subject landlord did not "identify any immediate need for the 
          subject apartments," and that, the tenants state, "the New School 
          had no plans to put the tenants' apartments to immediate use and, 
          in fact, had no need for the space to begin with."

               After careful consideration, the Commissioner finds that the 
          landlord's petitions should be denied.

               The applicable rent regulation in this proceeding is Section 
          2204.9(a)(3) of the City Rent and Eviction Regulations.  Pursuant 
          to the above-mentioned rent regulation, the rent agency shall grant 
          a landlord's application for a Certificate of Eviction when the 
          following conditions are met:

                    Where the landlord is a hospital, convent,
                    asylum, public institution, college, school
                    or any institution operated exclusively for
                    charitable or educational purposes on a 
                    nonprofit basis, that the landlord requires
                    the housing accommodations or the land, or 
                    any part thereof, for its own immediate use
                    in connection with its charitable, religious
                    or educational purposes....

               Pursuant to the clear language and intent of the above- 
          mentioned section of the rent regulations, the Commissioner is of 
          the opinion that one of the conditions the subject landlord must 
          meet in order for the rent agency to issue a Certificate of 
          Eviction is that the landlord must establish that it requires the 
          subject apartments for its own immediate use in connection with its 
          educational purposes.

               Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that it was proper for the 
          ALJ to make a determination pertaining to the issue of whether the 
          landlord requires the subject apartments for its own immediate use.


               The Commissioner points out that the ALJ's findings were based 
          on several days of oral testimony by the subject tenants and 
          witnesses for the subject landlord, and documentary evidence 
          submitted by the landlord at the hearings.  The Commissioner 
          further points out that the record contains transcripts of the oral 
          testimonies given during the hearings.

               As previously noted, the ALJ made a finding, based on the 












          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. HJ420127RO, ETC.

          evidence, that the subject landlord does not require the subject 
          apartments for its own immediate use in connection with its 
          educational purposes.

               The Commissioner finds that the subject landlord, in its 
          petitions for administrative review, does not refer to any evidence 
          in the record which would establish that the ALJ's findings and 
          recommendations should not have been adopted by the Administrator 
          in the orders under review herein.

               The Commissioner takes note that several court cases cited in 
          the landlord's petitions defined "immediate," as used in the 
          applicable rent regulation, as not meaning "instantaneously, 
          without any delay, or any time intervening, but within a reasonable 
          time, without unreasonable or unnecessary delay, having due regard 
          to the nature and circumstances of the particular case."  See, 
          Hughes V. Weaver, 11 Misc. 2d 821, 178 N.Y.S. 2d 440, 442 (1957).

               As the record reflects that the former apartments in the 
          subject building which have been converted into offices are either 
          underutilized or have remained vacant; that the subject landlord is 
          not able to state specifically how it plans to utilize the subject 
          apartments; that the subject landlord can not specify when the 
          subject apartments would be utilized for educational purposes if 
          the subject tenants were evicted; that the subject landlord owns 
          several buildings near the subject building which contain vacant 
          offices; and that the subject landlord is not aware of how many 
          vacant offices are contained in its buildings, the Commissioner is 
          of the opinion that the subject landlord has not established that 
          if the subject tenants were evicted the subject apartments would be 
          utilized for educational purposes within a reasonable time 
          subsequent to the landlord obtaining possession of the subject 
          apartments.  Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the subject 
          landlord has not showed that it requires the subject apartments for 
          its own immediate use for its educational purposes.







               As to the landlord's assertion that the ALJ's finding that the 
          landlord, in good faith, intends to withdraw the subject apartments 
          from the rental markets and put them to "some school-related use" 
          should be sufficient for the rent agency to grant the landlord's 
          applications, the Commissioner finds that that assertion is without 
          merit.

               As the subject landlord has not met all of the conditions set 
          forth in the aforementioned applicable rent regulation, the 
          Commissioner finds that the subject landlord does not qualify for 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. HJ420127RO, ETC.

          Certificates of Eviction in this proceeding. 

               Based on the above-mentioned, the Commissioner finds that the 
          Administrator's orders under review herein should not be disturbed.

               As to the landlord's assertion that its applications for 
          Certificates of Eviction were improperly denied based on the ALJ's 
          finding that the subject landlord did not need the subject 
          apartments, the Commissioner finds that that assertion is without 
          merit.  The Commissioner is of the opinion that the issue of the 
          landlord's need for the subject apartments was not a determinative 
          factor in the Administrator's findings in this proceeding; but, 
          rather, the determinative factor was the Administrator's finding 
          that the subject landlord has not showed that if the subject 
          tenants were evicted it would utilize the subject apartments for 
          its educational purposes within a reasonable period of time 
          subsequent to the landlord taking possession of the subject 
          apartments.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the ALJ's findings and 
          the Administrator's orders are not contrary to the holdings in the 
          aforementioned court cases cited by the landlord in its petitions.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the aforementioned 
          court cases do not hold that the issue of "immediate use" is 
          irrelevant in determining whether a landlord, pursuant to Section 
          2204.9(a)(3) of the City Rent and Eviction Regulations and its 
          predecessors, is entitled to a Certificate of Eviction.  The 
          Commissioner is further of the opinion that the aforementioned 
          court cases hold that for the landlord to be eligible for a 
          Certificate of Eviction it must meet the conditions specified in 
          the applicable rent regulation.  As the applicable rent regulation 
          in this proceeding requires a showing of "immediate need," the 
          Commissioner finds that the subject landlord's interpretation of 
          the aforementioned court cases as they pertain to the issues in 
          this proceeding is incorrect.

               


               The Commissioner points out that in footnotes five and six of 
          the landlord's petitions it cites the case of In re Application of 
          Whitney Museum of American Art V. New York State Division of 
          Housing and Community Renewal, 139 A.D.2d 444, 527 N.Y.S.2d 26 
          (1988).  In the above-mentioned case, which involved a museum 
          seeking Certificates of Eviction for ten rent controlled 
          apartments, the court remitted the proceeding to the D.H.C.R., and 
          the court directed the rent agency to conduct "a hearing as to the 
          Museum's good faith intention to withdraw the subject housing 
          accommodations for its own immediate use in connection with its 
          educational purposes."  See, In re Application of Whitney Museum of 
          American Art, 527 N.Y.S.2d at 29.












          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. HJ420127RO, ETC.


               In the aforementioned case of Hughes V. Weaver, the court 
          affirmed the rent agency's granting of the landlord's, Roosevelt 
          Hospital, applications for Certificates of Eviction.  The court 
          distinguished its determination from prior cases cited by the 
          tenants, in which the landlords' applications for Certificates of 
          Eviction were denied, by pointing out that Roosevelt Hospital had 
          showed that it needed the housing accommodations for its immediate 
          use; but, that in the cases cited by the tenants (New York 
          University V. McGoldrick, 205 Misc. 790, 129 N.Y.S.2d 77 and 
          Trustees of Columbia University V. Weaver, N.Y.L.J., Oct. 23, 1956, 
          p. 7, col. 4), as pointed out by the court, the landlords had not 
          showed that they needed the housing accommodations for their 
          immediate use.  See, Hughes V. Weaver, 178 N.Y.S.2d 440, 442.

               Accordingly, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the 
          Administrator's denial of the subject landlord's applications based 
          on a finding that the landlord has not showed that it requires the 
          subject apartments "for its own immediate use in connection with 
          its educational purposes" was not contrary to the holdings in the 
          court cases cited by the subject landlord.

               After reviewing all the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner adopts the findings and recommendations of the ALJ.

               Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the landlord's 
          petitions should be denied.











               THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent and Rehabilitation 
          Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is

               ORDERED, that the landlord's petitions be, and the same hereby 
          are, denied, and that the Administrator's orders be, and the same 
          hereby are, affirmed.

          ISSUED:












          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. HJ420127RO, ETC.

                                                                       
                                             LULA M. ANDERSON
                                             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