DOCKET NO.:  AL 410120-RT
                                 STATE OF NEW YORK
                           OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

     APPEAL OF                              ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                         :  DOCKET NO.:  AL 410120-RT
             SANDE NELSON,                  DRO DOCKET NO.:  ZL001967-R
                             PETITIONER  :                 


     On December 11, 1986, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed  a  Petition
     for Administrative Review against an order issued on November 12, 1986  by
     the Rent Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall  Street,  Jamaica,  New  York,
     concerning the housing accommodation known as 3BN,  210  Thompson  Street,
     New York, New York, wherein the Administrator found no rent overcharge and 
     denied the application.

     The Commissioner has examined all of the evidence in the  record  and  has
     carefully considered that portion of the evidence relevant  to  the  issue
     raised in the administrative appeal.

     The tenant commenced this proceeding on May 20, 1985 by filing a complaint 
     of rent overcharge, based in part on the tenant's belief that the previous 
     tenant had paid rent of $170.00 per month.  The complainant, who had taken 
     occupancy of the subject apartment on September 1, 1977 pursuant to a  two
     year lease terminating August 31, 1979  at  a  monthly  rent  of  $275.00,
     stated that she had not received an RR-1 form.   In  addition  the  tenant
     alleged that the owner had charged a late rent fee of $10.00 per month and 
     had not refunded interest on the security deposit.

     On July 14, 1985, a copy of the complaint was served on the owner.  

     In reply, the owner (Bruno Ilibassi) submitted a  copy  of  the  apartment
     registration form (form RR-1) with proof of mailing which was effected  on
     June 15, 1984.  The owner listed the lease amounts which had been paid  by
     the tenant and stated that the records of the prior  owner  revealed  that
     the previous tenant had paid $255.00 per month.  With respect to the  late
     fee, the owner asserted that the tenant had been informed that a late  fee
     would be imposed but there had been no enforcement.  The tenant,  who  was
     habitually late in paying the rent, had voluntarily paid the late  fee  on
     three occasions.  The owner also disputed  that  the  tenant  had  paid  a
     security deposit.  In continuation of  the  prior  owner's  practice,  the
     owner had collected the last month's rent paid in advance.  Since, in  the
     owner's opinion, this was not a security deposit,no interest was owing  on
     the amount.

     In  rebuttal,  the  tenant  demanded  an   accounting   with   appropriate
     documentation of the rent history of the subject  apartment.   The  tenant
     requested a refund of the late fees paid with interest.  The tenant stated 
     again that she had not received the RR-1.

     The owner responded and repeated that the RR-1 had been  served  in  1984.

          DOCKET NO.:  AL 410120-RT
     The owner asserted that under the law it was  obligated  to  keep  records
     from April 1980.  Since the tenant had been in occupancy since  1977,  the
     owner would be happy to review all rent  increases  that  the  tenant  had

     In the order under appeal, the Rent Administrator, finding that the tenant 
     had been served with the required Apartment Registration form and had  not
     filed a timely objection to the registered rent, determined that the  rent
     which had been registered by the owner  in  1984  was  the  Initial  Legal
     Registered Rent, and that this rent  had  been  lawfully  increased  by  a
     guidelines increase.  Consequently, the Administrator found no  overcharge
     and ordered that the tenant's application be  denied.   The  Administrator
     advised the tenant to file a  complaint  with  the  Division  of  Consumer
     Frauds with respect to the interest claimed on the  security  deposit  and
     further advised that since the late charges had been paid prior  to  April
     1, 1984, the complaint was untimely filed.

     In the appeal, the tenant contends that the Administrator's  finding  that
     the Apartment Registration had been served was error because the owner had 
     offered no actual proof of receipt.

     In response, the owner  asserted  that  it  was  in  compliance  with  the
     requirements of the law and submitted copies of the  RR-1  with  proof  of
     mailing, and copies of various other registration forms.

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.

     Section 26-517 of the Rent Stabilization  Law  provides  for  the  initial
     registration  of  rent  stabilized  apartments.   Section   26-516a(2)(ii)
     requires the tenant to file an objection to this initial  registered  rent
     "within ninety (90) days of the mailing of notice to the  tenant  of  such

     In the instant case, a review of  the  record  reveals  that  the  initial
     apartment registration form was mailed on June 15, 1984.  Pursuant to  the
     Rent Stabilization Law and instructions for rent  registration  under  the
     Omnibus Housing Act which was disseminated by the Division, an  owner  was
     required to maintain proof of delivery of the  registration  form.   Three
     methods of delivery were suggested by the instructions:  1) hand  delivery
     to the tenant; 2) U.S. Post Office "Carrier Route Pre-Sort"  service;  and
     3) delivery to the post office to be proved by a  signed,  dated  copy  of
     Post Office form #PO 3877.  The delivery method effected by the  owner  in
     this case is akin to method no. 3 cited above.  Here, the owner submits, a 
     proof of delivery to the post office, a copy of post  office  form  #3817,
     certificate of mailing, postmarked and properly addressed to  the  tenant.
     Forms #3877 and #3817 perform a similar function, in that each form  shows
     receipt and certification of mailing by the  post  office.    Indeed,  the
     only funtional  difference  between  the  two  forms  is  that  the  #3877
     accommodates fifteen addresses, whereas the #3817 accommodates  only  one.
     For each there is a fee of forty  cents  per  addressee.   Therefore,  the
     Commissioner finds that the owner  has  submitted  satisfactory  proof  of
     delivery.  The Commissioner notes that the ninety (90) day time  limit  in
     which to challenge the initial registration begins to run from the date of 
     mailing and the owner is required to prove only the date of  delivery  and
     not the date of  actual  receipt  by  the  tenant.   The  tenant  has  not
     submitted evidence to overcome  the  owner's  proof  of  delivery  of  the
     apartment registration form.

     Therefore, the Commissioner finds that based  on  the  entire  record  the

          DOCKET NO.:  AL 410120-RT
     Administrator properly denied the tenant's application.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, and the 
     Omnibus Housing Act of 1983, it is 

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,  and  that
     Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby is, affirmed.


                                          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