Citation Numbers： 205 Misc. 391, 1954 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2129, 131 N.Y.S.2d 168
Judges： McNally
Filed Date： 2/26/1954
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/19/2024
This is an article 78 proceeding brought by the landlord-petitioner to revoke an order of the State Bent Administrator which denied his application for decontrol and which reduced the maximum rent of an apartment.
The tenant first occupied the apartment in 1941, pursuant to a lease providing for combined residential and professional use. One room was used for professional purposes, the other five rooms were for the residential needs of the tenant, her husband and their three children.
The local rent administrator after a physical inspection indicated the premises were predominantly residential in character. The landlord was notified that the maximum rent would be reduced unless the apartment was painted within seven days. Upon the landlord’s failure to paint, the maximum rent was reduced from $143.28 to $128.95. The order did not make any findings on the question of decontrol. The landlord’s protest was denied upon finding that the landlord failed to paint, with a direction to the local rent administrator to take up the question of decontrol in a separate proceeding.
Subsequently, in the article 78 petition brought by the landlord consequent upon that order, the matter was remitted to the commission upon the administrator’s application, in order to make a consolidated disposition of both the decontrol and painting issues. At a subsequent conference at which both parties appeared and were represented by counsel, it was found that the greater space of the apartment was used for exclusive residential purposes, and that five rooms out of the six were used by the tenant’s family as their home. The landlord failed to introduce proof to indicate that the rental value of the professional space (one room) was greater than the rental value of the dwelling space (five rooms). The State Bent Administrator then issued an order which found the apartment was subject to rent control as a residential housing accommodation, and affirmed the reduction of the maximum rent. It was consequent upon this order that the present article 78 petition was made.
Subdivision 2 of section 2 of the State Bent and Eviction Begulations defines a housing accommodation as follows: “2. ‘Housing Accommodations.’ Any building or structure, permanent or temporary, or any part thereof, occupied or intended to be occupied by one or more individuals as a residence, home, sleeping place, boarding house, lodging house or hotel, together with the land and buildings appurtenant thereto, and all services, privileges, furnishings, furniture and facilities supplied in connection with the occupation thereof.”
With reference to classification, the commission has issued a series of opinions. Administrator’s Opinion Ho, 34 is as follows;
It would appear from the record- that the instant proceeding falls within the purview of subdivision (3) of Opinion No. 34. Less than a predominant part of the total space is used for professional purposes and the rental value of the professional portion does not clearly exceed the rental value of the dwelling portion. In the circumstances, the findings of the State Rent Administrator were warranted, the application must be denied and the petition is dismissed.