Docket No. AL410681RO
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 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: AL410681RO
DISTRICT RENT
Melohn Properties c/o ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. NO.: 7MBC13M(7M1534M)
PETITIONER
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodations known as 327 Central Park West, Apts. PHB, 11C, New
York, New York.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevnat ot
the issues raised by the petition.
The issue on appeal is whether the Administrator's order was
correct.
In the order under appeal herein, the Administrator found that
the owner had served the tenants with a Notice of the Owner's
Eligibility for Maximum Base Rent (MBR) increases more than sixty
(60) days after the Order of Eligibility was issued. The
Administrator thus issued an order modifying the Order of
Eligibility, to make rent increases collectible prospectively only.
On appeal, the owner concedes that it served the Notice on the
tenants in an untimely manner but it makes two arguments on appeal
why the Administrator was in error in granting the owner
prospective rent increases only. These arguments are (1) that the
late service was not the fault of the owner and (2) the owner was
denied due process by the Administrator.
In support of its first argument the owner contends that it
should not be held responsible for the late service, since the
late service was due to difficulties experienced by the vendor
Docket No. AL410681RO
retained by the owner to devise a computer program to automate the
service of the Notices of MBR Eligibity upon the tenants.
In support of its second argument, the owner makes two separate
and distinct contentions. The owner first contends that it was
denied due process by the Administrator below because it was not
served with a copy of the tenant's Challenge to of the Order of
Eligibility (the filing of such Challenge initiated the proceeding
under review herein), and that it did not learn of the instant
proceeding until it was served with a copy of the Administrator's
order. The owner also contends that there is no language in the
Rent and Eviction Regulations authorizing a 60 day time limit to
service of the Notice upon tenants and the Administrator therefore
acted beyond the scope of its authority in enforcing such a time
limit.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
denied.
The MBR order of eligibility was a conditional order and one of
the specified conditions was the requirement that the owner make
timely service on the tenants. The Commissioner is of the opinion
that imposition of such a condition is reasonable and within this
agency's discretion. Even if it was not, the owner made no
objections when the Order of Eligibility was issued.
Since the challenge procedure was ex parte, as had been the
original procedure leading to the MBR Order of Eligibility, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the said procedure did not deny
the owner due process.
THEREFORE, is accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and
tkhe same hereby is, denied, and, that the order of the Rent
Administrator be and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
