Opinion
July 6, 1970
In a proceeding by a landlord, pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR, to review respondent's determination, dated July 1, 1969, which affirmed an order of the District Rent Director of the Brooklyn District Rent Office, dated April 3, 1969, denying the landlord's application for a certificate of eviction of a certain tenant, the landlord appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 7, 1969, which denied his petition and dismissed the proceeding. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs; determination of respondent and order of the District Rent Director annulled; and respondent directed to issue the requested certificate of eviction. This proceeding was brought for a certain certificate of eviction so as to obtain possession of an apartment in premises containing eight dwelling units, for occupancy by one of the two landlords, who resided elsewhere. Under such circumstances, section Y51 6.0 (subd. b, par. [1]) of the New York City Administrative Code [Residential Rent Control Law] provides that a certificate shall issue where the landlord seeks, in good faith, to obtain possession for his own personal use. It is not necessary that compelling necessity be established. We find no basis in this record to impeach or even to challenge petitioner's good-faith intent to actually occupy the apartment in question. It is not a sufficient basis for such impeachment or challenge that he might have been able to obtain possession of other apartments in the premises, especially where those apartments were extremely small or decontrolled ( Matter of Tischler v. McGoldrick, 281 App. Div. 908; Rosenbaum v. Herman, 234 N.Y.S.2d 327; Matter of McCabe v. Gabel, 22 A.D.2d 939). Moreover, petitioner at one point during these proceedings offered the tenant, a widow, a vacant apartment, at the same rent she was paying for the subject apartment. That rental was less than the registered rent for the vacant apartment. In addition, petitioner offered to pay her moving expenses. He has manifested a genuine desire to occupy the 3 1/2-room apartment which he seeks in this proceeding. In our opinion, petitioner's good faith has been established and a certificate should have been ordered to issue. Hopkins, Acting P.J., Martuscello, Latham, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.