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
    

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